BLOG: Bolt blames Islam, ignores terror victims ...

I've already referred to the genocidal comments Andrew Bolt and his colleagues at the Herald Sun have allowed to be published on his blog. But what did Andrew Bolt himself have to say?

Bolt's response can be read here. At the time of writing this, there are 11 updates to his initial post. Update 11 contains these words ...

I think the apologists are running out of excuses. The US, we were told, brought 9-11 on itself through its aggression. We invited Bali on ourselves by siding with the US. India provoked the Mumbai slaughter by discriminating against Muslims. But the Sri Lankans? How on earth can even the barking mad blame them for this? Now, can we start discussing the role of Islam in political violence, and without the usual shut-ups of “racist!”.

So while terrorists have attacked cricket, Bolt wants to talk theology and its alleged role in promoting terrorism. But how serious is he about terrorism? After all, what can terrorism be if not the slaughter of innocents? Yet in his entire post, not even once does Bolt mention those killed in this attack. He doesn't spare a word for those brave Pakistani police officers and the 2 innocent passers-by who died in the attack.

Bolt wants to blame Islam and the Koran at a time when the victims' relatives will be reciting chapters from the Koran and praying to God that these victims are shown God's mercy and entered into paradise. Bolt wants to blame the religion of the victims.

Bolt has given the green light for the miscellaneous bigots that crowd his blog to spray their filth on the Herald Sun's website. But before that, Bolt and his buddies must moderate what are clearly the comments of trolls:

Ah, the rich and vibrant tapestry that is Islam. Every day another majestical experience...
Infidel Tiger (Reply)
Tue 03 Mar 09 (03:58pm)

kristof replied to Infidel Tiger
Tue 03 Mar 09 (06:11pm)
oh come on, these sorts of things happen all over the world and you are blaming islam? this is really terrible and cant be defended BUT people get slaughtered in every isla.. oops sorry every country every day what is so special about a bus in lahore? are you racist?? islam would never permit this. it must be jews. this could happen in a christian country and it could be nuns and you are drawing strings..... sammer will explain.

Still, who needs trolls when naked hatred will do the trick?

One disagreement, Andrew. It isn’t Pakistan that’s being lost. It’s everywhere there is islam. Including right here in Oz.
Appeasement was the entrance door to WW2. Now it beckons another even larger conflict.
Terry of Sydney (Reply)
Tue 03 Mar 09 (04:07pm)

Red Baron replied to strange days indeed
Tue 03 Mar 09 (07:21pm)
What do you mean by “Pakistan being lost?”
Pakistan was never “won” in the first place. Pakistan is build on Islam and nothing but Islam, it never had an economic base, it doesn’t have a language or culture of its own, it seceeded from India and is dependent on the jiziyah, the tribute from Western, infidel countries that have sustained it till now.
Its the same in Bangladesh.
Pakistan is another failed state. Because of Islam.
But hey, call me ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’- like I care!

No, clearly Red Baron doesn't care. After all, this is his blog. And the moderators of this blog have no problem with hate-speech, even if they have a problem with swearing:

Verax replied to Bill
Tue 03 Mar 09 (06:04pm)
SNIPPED - swearing.

And then there is this classic.

Apart from Double dealing, Hatred, Misery, Depravity and Fanaticism what else is Pakistan famous for? ...
JV of North Essendon (Reply)
Tue 03 Mar 09 (05:42pm)

Well, I realise this isn't quite relevant to the present discussion, but Pakistan is famous for producing some world-class cricket and for manufacturing cricket equipment. Anyway, back to the hate-speech:

Perhaps a few people of all kinds will now begin to wake up to the horror that is islam.
Appeasement has to stop in all Western nations and these multitude of muhammadans, who we keep being told are a minority, who have hi-jacked the ‘religion’ must be imprisoned and sent back to their respective nations.
A halt has to be called on immigration of muslims to Western countries. I’m sorry for any who genuinely want out and would integrate, but they must really stay and rectify their own lands.
We have imported enough trouble and it has to stop if we want to continue to have freedom of speech, freedom of action and just plain decency.
I, for one, don’t want to see my children growing up under the yoke of islam, which is an evil political ideology not a religion.
Marilyn LeBez of Australia (Reply)
Tue 03 Mar 09 (05:54pm)

I'm sure Bolt would have allowed a similar comment about Jews during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza. No? He wouldn't have? I'm glad. Because such a comment would have been grossly unfair. But when it comes to certain groups Bolt isn't exactly fond of, fairness can go get ...

Tonight the ABC had the story of the Sri Lankans shooting followed by kev’s 20
million rebuilding gift. My conclusion, muslims declare war on the world and the
world say’s, here’s more money, so you can do a better job.If this is not a
declaration of war, God only knows what it is, just as well the Indians didn’t
go.
ark (Reply)
Tue 03 Mar 09 (07:54pm)

What’s the excuse of the
muslims this time? Occupation? Foreign policy? What is it now?
Ben of
Springvale (Reply)
Tue 03 Mar 09 (07:55pm)

And then there are some crazy people who still think Colonel Gaddafi is some kind of pro-Islamist terrorist involved in a deep dark conspiracy ...

Ironic but significant - the attack was made near the GADDAFI stadium…
Could someon please tell me what exactly is so attractive about the Islamists to people who refuse to “see” them?
Is it the cunning way they use weapons or what?
dowp (Reply)
Tue 03 Mar 09 (08:25pm)

This is freedom of speech, Andrew Bolt style. Throw the statutes out the window. Defend democracy while ignoring the rule of law. Regard yourself as above the law. And start pointing fingers at 1.2 billion people before anyone has even named a suspect and any group has claimed responsibility.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOGS: Eight Pakistanis die but Bolt's bloggers want more to die ...

Well, the news from Lahore isn't good. Sri Lankan cricketers and their Australian coach wounded in a terrorist attack on Pakistan's cultural capital. Six Pakistani police officers were shot dead, as were two bystanders.

And Andrew Bolt's friends want more to die. Pakistan is a nation of 200 million people. But at the Herald Sun, it's clear that wiping Pakistan off the world map isn't regarded as terribly extreme. Here are the first 2 moderated comments ...

Pakistan was lost many years ago, Andrew. Probably around
the time it was a created as nation for Indian Muslims. Pakistan
has long been a safe haven for terrorists and they are hiding there
in droves waiting to some out. India was
right in its verbal attack on
Pakistan after the Mumbai massacre and if India
sees fit to go to war with
Pakistan, then we should support them.

George
P of Albert Park
(Reply)
Tue 03 Mar 09 (03:55pm)

Peter of Mt Eliza
replied to George P
Tue 03 Mar 09 (08:30pm)
Time for a Carthaginian solution.

If you don’t understand, brush up on your history. It works. Brutal -
yes. Effective - Yes

The Cathaginian solution? What did the Romans do in Carthage? Well, Carthage was a city in northern Africa on the Mediterranean coast. Its ruins are located in what is now Tunisia. The city was destroyed by the Romans in 146BC. According to this report:

The city was besieged, and after two years of furious fighting was stormed and sacked and utterly destroyed.

And what happened to Carthage? What did the Romans accomplish at Carthage? Writes Ben Kiernan:

Rome soon began a three-year siege of the world's wealthiest city. Of a population of 2-400,000, at least 150,000 Carthaginians perished. Appian described one battle in which '70,000, including non-combatants' were killed, probably an exaggeration. But Polybius, who participated in the campaign, confirmed that 'the number of deaths was incredibly large' and the Carthaginians 'utterly exterminated'. (In 146, Roman legions under Scipio Aemilianus, Cato's ally and brother-in-law of his son, razed the city, and dispersed into slavery the 55,000 survivors, including 25,000 women. Plutarch concluded: 'The annihilation of Carthage ... was primarily due to the advice and counsel of Cato' ...

Its policy of 'extreme violence', the 'annihilation of Carthage and most of its inhabitants', ruining 'an entire culture', fits the modern legal definition of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention: the intentional destruction 'in whole or in part, [of] a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such'.

And what kind of thinking led to the complete destruction of Carthage? According to Ben Kiernan:

Some features of the ideology motivating the Roman destruction of Carthage in 146 BC have surprisingly modern echoes in 20th-century genocides. Racial, religious or cultural prejudices, gender and other social hierarchies, territorial expansionism ...

Peter of Mt Eliza has posted a comment calling for the complete annihilation of Pakistan as a nation. He calls upon readers to brush up on their history. I've just brushed up on mine. The results are frightening.

The Herald Sun newspaper has moderated and allowed a comment to be published on its most popular blog of its star columnist which calls for genocide. This is Australia's biggest selling newspaper, part of a multi-billion dollar media empire.

UPDATE I: Why stop at Pakistan? Just murder all those bloody Muzzies. Announce a genocidal war of Armageddon-proportions on the Herald Sun's most read blog. Allow your hatred to be read by over 1 million readers per month. This is where Peter of Mt Eliza left off ...

Heretic replied to George P
Tue 03 Mar 09 (10:16pm)
Have to agree Peter. In my readings of history,
the only ruler who came close to destroying islam once and for all was Genghis
Khan, when his forces swept accross central asia. And he didn’t do it by being
nice. He did it by simply laying waste to everything in his path. Legend has it
nothing bigger than an insect survived wherever his forces passed. One day soon,
the jihadists will push the US, or India, or Israel too far, and their
supposedly peaceful supporters will pay the price.

murph replied to George P
Wed 04 Mar 09 (12:57am)
Cartago delende est!
Islamabad delende est!
Mecca delende est!
Medina delende est!
Damascus delende est!
Jeddah delende est!
Tehran delende est!

Brett Coster replied to George P
Wed 04 Mar 09 (01:24am)
Ah, yes Peter: genocide, the, shall we say,
Final Solution?
And the Boltaverse moderators let that through?

Peter of Mt Eliza replied to George P
Wed 04 Mar 09 (08:30am)
Dear Brett Coster, Quite different to the
“Final Solution”. Circumstances quite different. Solution quite
different.
Read your history and try and wrap your mind around the
differences. Hint: Google Punic Wars.
Not Genocide - that’s what the
Islamic extremists would want to visit upon all unbelievers.

nigel replied to George P
Wed 04 Mar 09 (10:04am)
Just heard a commentator, from Pakistan, trying
to put the blame on India.They are so pathetic that their first thought is to
try and pay India back for accusing Pakistan based terrorists of being
responsible for the recent attack in India.Funnily enough they were.Pakistan’s
only successful business export is islamic terrorists and Britons now live in
fear and have to spend countless millions weeding out and tracking, home grown,
or imported Pakistani killers.They have caved in to the extremists internally
and their political and civil society is amongst the most corrupt in the
world.Britain did India a favour by getting rid of these islamic crazies, all
those years ago.However having them on your borders has cost many lives."Drop
the bomb,kill them all”.

A quick lesson in Latin - delende est means "must be eliminated".

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf




Bookmark this on Delicious

HATEWATCH: Ethnic crime and xenophobia on Andrew Bolt's blog ...

Andrew Bolt is somehow able to link three Sydney incidents on his blog:

1. A number of boys going on the rampage at a Catholic independent school in Auburn;

2. A 16 year old boy who might be charged with murder by police; and

3. A brawl at a Sydney cinema.

And what was Bolt's conclusion?

That police seem to play down the violence, and that the tired counter-accusation of racism is used, only makes clearer some of the reasons we got to this point.

Er ... um ... the reasons? What are those reasons? And what does racism have to do with it? Why bring race into it?

Perhaps some of the comments on Bolt's blog have something to say about this ...

These are the sons or grandsons of the men who reduced Beruit to rubble. Governments have allowed them into this country and need to explain their actions to the average Australian who is going to bear the brunt.
Observer (Reply)
Mon 02 Mar 09 (02:38pm)

Yep, they all came from Beirut. Not Tripoli or Baalbek or the Chouf Mountains. But why stop at identifying cities? Why not go for entire religions and regions?

Alan of Sydney replied to tony
Mon 02 Mar 09 (03:25pm)
Hmmm.
Catholic School targeted in Auburn, hotspot Muslim and Pacific Islander trouble spot.

And let's throw in some homophobia for good measure.

Case replied to Wacko
Mon 02 Mar 09 (05:46pm)
Lok at it in a positive light-Sydney leads the rest of Oz again.
Well, at least as far as mardi grARS it does!

Those poor victims who went to Cronulla Beach and shouted "F*ck The Lebs" and "F*ck The Wogs" must be exonerated. And what better place than on a blog hosted by Australia's biggest selling newspaper?

the rioting outside a cinema screening a film about Lebanese (muslim )gangs has me puzzled. As the film industry is very left wing in its views, and the left blame the Cronulla riots on the white Aussie boys, and blame all of us for the failure of muslims to integrate ( we are so racist you know), surely the film will show the lebanese gangs as poor, hard-done-by, misunderstood and gentle fellows who just want to be like the rest of us apart from downtreading their women folk and pack-raping white girls.. so who is objecting to the film? could it be white Aussies? surely not? if it’s the nice lebanese Muslims what would they be objecting to? have they actually seen the film?
lethal of WA (Reply)
Mon 02 Mar 09 (03:20pm)

Returning to migrants from a certain nearby region ...

Pacific Islanders are probably the most common suspects in Sydney home invasion imo using their bulk.
Crime Rep (Reply)
Mon 02 Mar 09 (03:36pm)


Crime Rep replied to arnie
Mon 02 Mar 09 (06:41pm)
There is an element for sure. Islanders are heavily over-represented in home invasions.


There’s been a few other incidences of Islanders invading homes.
Mostly pistol whipping people and robbing them.
The worst was in the Suburb of Claymore where a woman was raped deliberately in front of her kids. This was a few years ago. The one man caught was named [name deleted] ...
Crime Rep (Reply)
Mon 02 Mar 09 (03:42pm)

So if you are from Beirut, are Lebanese, Lebanese Muslim, Pacific Islander and/or homosexual, the Herald Sun has just allowed you to be vilified. Now if any of the Herald Sun's advertisers allowed their employees to place such filth on their intranets or their e-mail servers, they'd be in huge trouble. But this is the Herald Sun. Its staff are above the law. It is a company above the law.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: Yet another tabloid Muslim monolith story ...

The Daily Telegraph ran a story today about a woman wearing a judge’s wig backwards who was forced by her dad and an imam to get married to a Canadian man. Serious. Here is a picture of the women with some other women dressed as judges.


Assuming the report is correct (and yes, I know that is a difficult assumption to make given we are talking about the Tele), the following points arise out of this story:

# The woman is an Australian citizen aged 27 years and working as a public servant.

# The woman first met the man, a divorced financial planner aged 39, when he arrived at the airport.

# The man was a divorcee from Canada.

# The woman was said to come from “a traditional Islamic family”. No clues are given as to the women’s ethnic, linguistic or cultural background.

# Three years after meeting the man, the woman again met him at her home.

# An imam of undisclosed ethnicity also attended the woman’s home on that occasion. He was found to have tricked a woman into signing some papers.

# The "couple" thought the papers were for an engagement.

# The papers in fact included a marriage certificate.

# There are two quotes in the story, these being ...

We are a traditional patriarchal family and it would not be appropriate for me to question my father or the imam.

... and ...

because in our culture it is not acceptable that women speak to men not in their family.

# The words “appropriately” (relating to the bride’s dress as ordered by her father) and “bundle of papers” (referring to the papers brought by the imam to the family’s home.

# The woman and man both agreed to the "engagement" off.

# The woman approached the court to have the marriage annulled under the Family Law Act, and her application was successful.

# The marriage was never consummated.

According to the Daily Telegraph, this story was yet another example of a monolithic "Muslim" culture. Yet none of the quotes from the woman’s brother or from the woman herself indicate anything about their religion. Yes, culture is mentioned. The brother even said that their family was “a traditional patriarchal family”. But any element of Islam or Mulimness was inserted by the reporter and/or editor.

Apart from the presence of an imam, what exactly about this story made it Muslim? Would this have been a "Christian" story if the marriage celebrant had been a reverend? Did the applicant or her family members refer to religion? Did the judge refer to religion? Here is how the Tele reported the judge’s observations:

The names of the couple and the imam have been suppressed by the Family Court. It is not the first Muslim "marriage" ruled void by the court.

Justice Nahum Mushin said there had been previous similar cases, including one in which the couple became married when all they thought they were doing was becoming engaged.

What did Justice Mushin say about religion? We only know the context which the Tele reporter decided to place the judge’s words in. The judge mentioned “similar previous cases”, but did he say that these cases involved Muslims?

The Tele has manufactured yet another “Muslim” story, trying to paint this as an example of a singular “Muslim” culture that simply doesn’t exist. This was the Tele’s goal, and it certainly achieved this goal judging by the comments accompanying the story. Just check out some of these moronic and almost xenophobic comments which have been moderated by the Tele on its website ...

Islam is not a religion,its a culture,ideology...
Posted by: Charity Box of Canberra 9:44am today
Comment 20 of 23

The whole philosophy of Islamic culture is one centred around male insercurity and their need for control to compensate for their inadequacies. If Islam was a culture based on equality millions of women all over the world would actually be enjoying life a lot more, for example, not having to hide their face because their 'husband' is afraid some other bloke might want to shag them.
Posted by: meremale of Lara 9:24am today
Comment 17 of 23

Scottie of 'Nulla is right, i mean, it's not just Muslims that do this its....... oh...... Bahai? wait.... no, Catholics..... no... Buddhists?... um... Scientology people?.... never mind.
Posted by: Bob of Melbourne 9:12am today
Comment 15 of 23

These people should be abiding by Australian laws and customs not some islamic law that doesnt exist in Australia. If they dont like that they should go home.
Posted by: Daniel of Sydney 8:27am today
Comment 7 of 23

The Tele has used stereotyping and prejudice to generate hits on its website, to attract readers and therefore advertisers. It has then moderated comments that further this prejudice.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

HATEWATCH: Herald-Sun moderates hate-speech on Andrew Bolt's blog ...

Andrew Bolt hates stereotypes. He never engages in spreading them. he never suggests or even implies them. And he certainly never allows them to be perpetuated by persons congregating around his blog.

Bolt and the Herald-Sun team are extremely careful to ensure that racist and xenophobic comments appear on blogs hosted by them. The Herald-Sun is well aware of its legal and ethical responsibilities in this regard. For this reason, only hate-free comments are allowed. Here are a sample ...

This post confirms what us bloggers from the right have been saying for so long. Yet our lefty opponents kept telling us we were mistaken.

These are the sons of men who left Beirut in rubble, and whom Malcolm Fraser decided to accept here - on refugee visas!

mh (Reply)
Sun 01 Mar 09 (11:34am)

OK, that must have been an exception. I doubt the Herald-Sun would allow anymore such remarks to be hosted on their site. Let's continue ...

Brett_McS replied to mh
Sun 01 Mar 09 (01:48pm)
Exactly, mh. And does this film in effect slander the Christian (Maronite) Lebanese who came over in the 50s and 60s on their own merits - mostly professional people - and who have fitted in well and contributed greatly to Australia? We know who the trouble makers are and they’re not “Lebanese” - they’re Muslim Lebanese.

See, this isn't racial vilification. It's ethno-religious vilification. Lebanese Muslims are "the trouble makers". All of them. Each and everyone of them. Continuing ...

Well I don’t know of course but you get the impression that there is a number or an above average percentage in the Lebanese/Arab/ Muslim of South West Sydney who are short tempered, relatively thick, criminal, and fundamentally violent with a huge sense of undeserved entitlement as compared to other communities.

Age of Stupid (Reply)
Sun 01 Mar 09 (12:34pm)

And then there is some classic historical revisionism to reinforce the racism.

My Lebanese mates are not Arabs. They are descendants of the Phoenicians, which race dwelled in Lebanon well before the Arabs arrived (though this type of fact tends to be ignored by lefties, unless Aborigines are involved).
What’s even more relevant, they are not Muslims, they are Maronite Christians. It’s the Muslims that cause trouble, as Bret_McS has pointed out elsewhere.

Mick of Wiley Park (Reply)
Sun 01 Mar 09 (02:55pm)

We'll keep an eye on this one.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: The future (if any) of metropolitan newspapers ...

A host of American newspaper groups has gone broke. The New York Times has been forced to mortgage its own premises. And now Fairfax has posted a $365 million loss for the first half of this financial year. Why is all this happening? Apparently classifieds revenue has hit an all time low.

Imagine waking up one day without the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and the Australian Financial Review.

If the Howard government's policies couldn't destroy media diversity, it seems the Global Financial Crisis could well kill off private media organisations one at a time.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: What a Muslim looks like, by the Daily Telegraph ...

An oldie but a goodie ...


Yesterday’s front page of The Australian carried a story headed “Muslim refugee home rental probe” about an investigation into the allegedly dodgy involvement of the Islamic Council of NSW in a NSW Department of Housing scheme for refugees.

People who engage in this sort of behaviour should be exposed regardless of their ethnicity or religion. The ICNSW is one of three competing Councils vying for representative status of Muslim New South Welshmen and women.

The story was repeated in The Oz today and also reported in the Daily Telegraph yesterday. The Tele’s website carried the following graphic showing a woman wearing a face veil:



What the …? A woman wearing a face veil? Was this a story about women? Or about belly dancers? Or about veiling practices? Not exactly.

The Oz for its part carried a photo of Ali Roude, the ICNSW vice-chair at the heart of the scandal.

You’d think by now that I'd be used to this kind of inane stereotyping. But this time it really got on my nerves. So I rang the Tele and spoke to their online editor Ricky Sutton yesterday afternoon.

The conversation started out OK. I asked Ricky why, of all the possible images he could put with the story, he used this one. After all, it was a story about the alleged abuse of community housing by two blokes. Here’s my recollection of how the conversation went:

RICKY: Look, it’s a story about Muslims and refugees and that. So we had to use a Muslim image. What’s wrong with that?

ME: What do women in face veils have to do with Muslims?

RICKY: Well, don’t all their women wear that kind of stuff?

ME: Really? And do you have any evidence to back it up?

RICKY: Listen, if it had been a story about a housing scandal in the Church of England, we’d have run a picture of a crucifix.

ME: So you’re saying that a woman’s head dress is the equivalent of a crucifix. Isn’t that a bit tabloidish?

RICKY: Now you’re the one doing the stereotyping. Are you saying the newspaper I work for is a tabloid?

ME: Well, yes. As a matter of fact, I am.

It all got a little Middle Eastern from there. I pointed him to each story and showed how each graphic made sense. A story about John Howard showed a picture of Howard. A story about the RAAF showed a picture of a fighter jet, etc.

It makes me wonder: how would you illustrate a story about The Daily Tele's approach to Islamic issues?

First published in Crikey on Wednesday 8 August 2007.

Words © 2007-08 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

UPDATE: Old stuff ...

I'll be posting more old stuff I've written elsewhere. Sometimes I'll add some comments but usually not.

In case you didn't know, I'm in the process of writing a book and having it published. My editor has almost finished editing my manuscript, so I'll be working on that for a fair while (as in 2 weeks or so).

After all that, hopefully this blog will have more original stuff.

Enjoy!

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA/CRIKEY: FoxNews accuses Mattel of producing jihad doll ...

Prominent toy manufacturer Fisher-Price, a subsidiary of Mattel, is accused by some American parents of selling a baby doll that preaches an Islamic message.

One parent told a sceptical Associated Press reporter in this video that the doll is saying "Islamin is the light”.

I’d hate to think what it would say if played backwards.

FoxNews’ report ("Parents Outraged Over Baby Doll They Say Mumbles Pro-Islam Message") was less sceptical, making an issue of how the manufacturer ...

... didn't immediately respond to FOXNews.com's requests for comment.

Yep, immediate silence is guilt. As if worries over Matel’s share price were clearly less pressing for the company’s PR spin-doctors.

And how much does Mattel really care about FoxNews’ latest al-Qaida conspiracy? Type the word "Islam" into the press release search engine and find out for yourself.

First published in the Crikey daily alert on Monday 13 October 2008.

Words © 2008 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