I’d hate to be working for the ABC. I mean, how embarrassing to be working for someone like Janet Albrechtsen?
Now of course, the above sentence is totally uncalled-for. It is a vicious personal attack and a gross generalisation about the ABC. To suggest that the entire organisation is somehow compromised because of one person sitting on its board of directors is hardly fair.
In short, I am playing the man (or in Janet’s case, the woman), not the issue.
Yet on matters as important as national security, this is exactly what Janet Albrechtsen has done. She has judged virtually the entire legal profession on the basis of her political profiling of a few civil libertarians.
And like her sad attempts at racial profiling, Janet’s political profiling is equally off-the-mark.
Some readers will remember when Janet made the extraordinary claim that Muslim migrant cultures teach teenage boys to gang-rape women with white skin. Apparently, according to Janet, this is some kind of “right of passage”.
It turned out, of course, that Janet was making the whole thing up. She did produce some evidence from European sociologists. It was all about as believable as John Howard arguing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Or Janet Albrechtsen for that matter.
(Don’t worry. She did.)
Janet’s extire argument may be paraphrased in two simple claims:
1. Lawyers opposing the anti-terror laws are all left-wing lunatics.
2. Muslim terrorists hate us because we are Australian.
Thankfully, Dr Albrechtsen is not working as a policy adviser in the Ministerial Office of the Attorney General. And thankfully, she makes no claims to being an expert on criminal law.
Dr Albrechtsen is a lawyer. Her PhD thesis had something to do with the exceptionally enjoyable topic of ASX Listing Rules. In essence, she is a commercial lawyer and has worked for at least one major commercial law firm.
So how does that qualify her to write on why white women seem to be the only ones getting gang-raped? Or why the war on Iraq can be justified under international law? Or why only left-wing lawyers oppose anti-terror laws?
Who knows? Who cares? The Murdochs clearly don’t. They continue to pay her to write her ideologically charged pieces.
Dr Albrechtsen is the Khalid Yasin of op-ed journalism. She makes all sorts of outlandish claims, playing fast-and-loose with facts. But then, that is what op-ed writers are paid to do. They express an opinion. It may be dumb. It may suck severely. But it’s an opinion.
And in the case of her most recent piece of anti-terror laws, Dr Albrechtsen is wrong.
Both her points are absolutely wrong. Let’s go through them, one-by-one.
In relation to her first claim that only left-leaning lawyers are opposed to the anti-terror laws, I know of at least two non-left (indeed, quite right-wing) lawyers who are opposed to the laws. And who are they?
Myself. And former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.
Now as a former member of the NSW-Right of the Liberal Party, I have not exactly been known for my left-wing views. In the past, I have written in support of voluntary student unionism and funding for independent schools. I also am not aware at anytime being a member of any left-wing political organisation (I believe Laurie Ferguson can confirm this). And many local Muslim leaders will tell you that I am not exactly fond of the local Muslim establishment.
As for Malcolm Fraser, the last time I checked he was not on the payroll of any trade union.
Yet both of us find the proposed laws absolutely abhorrent. And we certainly don’t believe that targeting Muslims is in any way helpful to achieving the goals of national security.
But of course, we all know (or at least Janet wants to tell us) that this war against terror is really a war between Islam and Christianity. Why? Because she swallows the words of two terrorists hook line and sinker.
It seems that decent policy arguments are unnecessary for Dr Albrechtsen to support the biggest compromise in civil liberties since Federation. All you need are some nasty quotes from those beady-eyed terrorist types.
And who better to quote from than Imam Samudra and Abu Bakar Bashir. Surely these two persons speak for all 1.2 billion Muslims (or at least for 350,000 Aussie Mossies) more eloquently than anyone.
In Dr Albrechtsen's world, in this holy month of Ramadan, Muslims across the world are renewing their pledge to hate Christians. Indonesian Muslims in particular are declaring their hatred for all things Australian. All those thousands of Indonesian overseas students studying in Aussie campuses are ready and waiting for the order from Bashir.
(Which one? The JI leader? Or the NSW Governor? Who cares. They’re all the bloody same!)
To use her own language, Dr Albrechtsen is influenced too much by “hysterical and absurd mantras". She claims that anti-terror laws are needed so that we can show we are not appeasing terrorists. Yet in reality, Dr Albrechtsen’s prescription is exactly what terrorists want.
Terrorists want Muslim Australians to feel like second class citizens in their own country. Terrorists want Aussie Mossies to be marginalised, for young Aussie Muslims to be profiled and arrested and detained without notice. Dr Albrechtsen wants to implement laws which can only be enforced by profiling Muslims on the basis of their names, their appearance or their declared religion.
Dr Albrechtsen supports these laws precisely because of what they achieve. Her views are in line with those of the terrorists in that she wants Muslims to be marginalised and therefore pushed in the direction of more radical Muslim groups.
© Irfan Yusuf
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Christian Laws - A classic letter to the editor …
This beauty is from the Daily Telegraph of Thursday 8 September 2005. Whoever wrote it must have been heavily influenced by Saudi propaganda as they regard “Shiite” law as being separate from “Islamic” law.
They also don’t know much about Christian theology. I was always taught at St Andrews Cathedral School that the law has been nailed to the cross and you needn’t follow a legal code to be saved. Christianity (at least in its low Church Anglican variety) has no law, though it does have strong views on ethics.
And it seems to me that Christian ethics seem to have been lost on some “Christian” Australians. Then again, true conservatism has also been lost on many allegedly conservative Australian politicians. And if you don’t believe me, just give the office of the Member for Mackellar a call.
Finally, I don’t recall ever learning about Christian laws in our common law or our statutes or even in our constitution at law school. And I should know given that I have studied at at least 2 law schools in Australia.
Read and enjoy.
___________________They also don’t know much about Christian theology. I was always taught at St Andrews Cathedral School that the law has been nailed to the cross and you needn’t follow a legal code to be saved. Christianity (at least in its low Church Anglican variety) has no law, though it does have strong views on ethics.
And it seems to me that Christian ethics seem to have been lost on some “Christian” Australians. Then again, true conservatism has also been lost on many allegedly conservative Australian politicians. And if you don’t believe me, just give the office of the Member for Mackellar a call.
Finally, I don’t recall ever learning about Christian laws in our common law or our statutes or even in our constitution at law school. And I should know given that I have studied at at least 2 law schools in Australia.
Read and enjoy.
In regards to the article “Islamic law for Australia” (Daily Telegraph, September 6). Australia already has its own laws and we do not need any Islamic laws or Hindu laws or Shiite laws. We have our own Christian laws and that’s because we are a Christian nation predominantly.
Terry Maim, Blacktown
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Not Always an Informed Australian
It never ceases to amaze me how feral some writers for The Australian can be. What makes me even more surprised is how the editors of the paper actually defend their regular columnists for being so irregular with the facts.
To this day, I will never understand how the editors of the paper could defend Janet Albrechtsen’s xenophobic claim that Muslim migrant cultures teach young men and boys to rape white women. And when Dr Albrechtsen was exposed on Media Watch, the paper continued on its vendetta against the program and the ABC in general.
Of course, it is impossible to make generalisations about an entire newspaper based upon some of its more rabid writers. After all, the paper does provide space for left-leaning Phillip Adams.
Yet some of its editorial decisions make one wonder whether the paper really is an open forum or whether it in fact has a deliberate agenda.
And if the articles of John Stone, Mark Steyn and Greg Sheridan are anything to go by, when it comes to anything relating to Muslims, the paper’s agenda seems quite clear.
John Stone wrote a set of offensive articles in support of his claim that our immigration policies should openly discriminate on the basis of presumed religious affiliation. His articles claimed that Muslim Australians cannot adapt to Australian culture, and that Islam is incompatible with our democratic values.
In response to that piece, the author submitted a brief opinion piece which was refused for publication on the basis that the paper rarely allowed an op-ed to be published which directly contradicted the argument of another opinion writer.
Of course, this excuse does not survive scrutiny. Recently, the rabidly Islamophobic Mark Steyn wrote a piece which directly referred to and contradicted an op-ed written by respected Australian terrorism expert Clive Williams.
The most recent piece by Greg Sheridan entitled “Struggle for the soul of Islam at critical stage” makes the extraordinary claim that an undefined entity known as “conservative Islam” is actually allowing suicide bombing to become “mainstream” in Muslim countries such as Indonesia.
It is interesting that nowhere in his piece does Sheridan actually define what “conservative Islam” actually is. Is he referring to the syncretic “Santri” Islam of the Nahdatul Ulama? Or is he referring to the reformist Muhammadiyya? Or the Barelwi scholarly movement of the Indian sub-continent? Or the imams of the Diyanet Vekfi of Turkey?
And what is his evidence for the suggestion that “conservative Islam” is somehow entering into a de facto marriage with extremism? Sheridan’s only evidence is a “fatwa” passed by one scholarly board in Indonesia against “liberal Muslims”.
And what is a “liberal Muslim”? Is it someone who belongs to the Liberal Party? Is it someone who grows a beard in the same style as the current Iranian President and Greg Sheridan?
Are “liberal Muslims” akin to the now-disbanded “Progressive Muslim Union of North America” (PMUNA) which now consists of a membership of around 3? Or do they consist of followers of a disgruntled Canadian lesbian dying for a fatwa so she can generate some decent book sales?
And if you think the op-eds are offensive, you should read some of the letters that pass through the editorial sieve. Here is a beauty from 5 October 2005 …
THIS latest bombing outrage by Muslim terrorists just reaffirms my belief that the war on terrorism by Western governments is nothing short of a war between western Christian civilisation and eastern Islamic barbarism. This is a war that will last decades, perhaps even centuries. Australia and other Western Christian countries are ruing the day we allowed large-scale immigration of Muslims into our liberal, secular societies. Australian Muslim leaders plead: "Don't blame Islam." Try telling that to the families of the thousands of innocent Westerners killed in cowardly Muslim terrorist bombings the world over.
This is the sort of stuff that makes Catch The Fire Ministries pastors look like masters of theosophy. How it gets onto the pages of an allegedly respectable broadsheet is anyone’s guess.
Still, I guess one cannot make generalisations about a newspaper. Though it does seem that everytime there is an election or a terrorist attack, The Australian goes into feral overdrive.
© Irfan Yusuf 2005
To this day, I will never understand how the editors of the paper could defend Janet Albrechtsen’s xenophobic claim that Muslim migrant cultures teach young men and boys to rape white women. And when Dr Albrechtsen was exposed on Media Watch, the paper continued on its vendetta against the program and the ABC in general.
Of course, it is impossible to make generalisations about an entire newspaper based upon some of its more rabid writers. After all, the paper does provide space for left-leaning Phillip Adams.
Yet some of its editorial decisions make one wonder whether the paper really is an open forum or whether it in fact has a deliberate agenda.
And if the articles of John Stone, Mark Steyn and Greg Sheridan are anything to go by, when it comes to anything relating to Muslims, the paper’s agenda seems quite clear.
John Stone wrote a set of offensive articles in support of his claim that our immigration policies should openly discriminate on the basis of presumed religious affiliation. His articles claimed that Muslim Australians cannot adapt to Australian culture, and that Islam is incompatible with our democratic values.
In response to that piece, the author submitted a brief opinion piece which was refused for publication on the basis that the paper rarely allowed an op-ed to be published which directly contradicted the argument of another opinion writer.
Of course, this excuse does not survive scrutiny. Recently, the rabidly Islamophobic Mark Steyn wrote a piece which directly referred to and contradicted an op-ed written by respected Australian terrorism expert Clive Williams.
The most recent piece by Greg Sheridan entitled “Struggle for the soul of Islam at critical stage” makes the extraordinary claim that an undefined entity known as “conservative Islam” is actually allowing suicide bombing to become “mainstream” in Muslim countries such as Indonesia.
It is interesting that nowhere in his piece does Sheridan actually define what “conservative Islam” actually is. Is he referring to the syncretic “Santri” Islam of the Nahdatul Ulama? Or is he referring to the reformist Muhammadiyya? Or the Barelwi scholarly movement of the Indian sub-continent? Or the imams of the Diyanet Vekfi of Turkey?
And what is his evidence for the suggestion that “conservative Islam” is somehow entering into a de facto marriage with extremism? Sheridan’s only evidence is a “fatwa” passed by one scholarly board in Indonesia against “liberal Muslims”.
And what is a “liberal Muslim”? Is it someone who belongs to the Liberal Party? Is it someone who grows a beard in the same style as the current Iranian President and Greg Sheridan?
Are “liberal Muslims” akin to the now-disbanded “Progressive Muslim Union of North America” (PMUNA) which now consists of a membership of around 3? Or do they consist of followers of a disgruntled Canadian lesbian dying for a fatwa so she can generate some decent book sales?
And if you think the op-eds are offensive, you should read some of the letters that pass through the editorial sieve. Here is a beauty from 5 October 2005 …
THIS latest bombing outrage by Muslim terrorists just reaffirms my belief that the war on terrorism by Western governments is nothing short of a war between western Christian civilisation and eastern Islamic barbarism. This is a war that will last decades, perhaps even centuries. Australia and other Western Christian countries are ruing the day we allowed large-scale immigration of Muslims into our liberal, secular societies. Australian Muslim leaders plead: "Don't blame Islam." Try telling that to the families of the thousands of innocent Westerners killed in cowardly Muslim terrorist bombings the world over.
This is the sort of stuff that makes Catch The Fire Ministries pastors look like masters of theosophy. How it gets onto the pages of an allegedly respectable broadsheet is anyone’s guess.
Still, I guess one cannot make generalisations about a newspaper. Though it does seem that everytime there is an election or a terrorist attack, The Australian goes into feral overdrive.
© Irfan Yusuf 2005
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Shedding Blood in the Holy Season
For millions of Indonesian and Australian Hindus and Muslims, this is a holy season. Ramadan is commencing, a time for fasting, charity and meditation for Muslims.
For Hindus, this is the sacred season leading upto Deepavali, a celebration of the victory of good over evil.
But in Bali, Indonesian Muslims and Hindus will be mourning the loss of loved ones during this sacred season. It seems the terrorists have won again.
Or have they? The New York Times website carried a series of photographs showing Muslims and Hindus marching side-by-side against terrorists. Terrorists want Muslim and Hindu to fight and kill each other. In Bali, the attacks have had the opposite effect.
Islam in Indonesia is largely a peaceful affair. And no, I am not engaging in empty apologetics. This is real.
In 2002, the conservative Centre for Independent Studies invited a senior official from the largest Islamic organisation in the world, the Nahdatul Ulama (meaning literally “Council of Religious Scholars”).
Muhammad Fajrul Falaakh studied in London, the United States and in a traditional Indonesian religious school. He spoke in the Great Hall of the New Zealand Parliament on 11 December 2002 on the topic of “Islam In Pluralist Indonesia”.
It is timely at this time to remind ourselves of Falaakh’s message on that occasion. He outlined 5 basic principles of Sharia law as understood by mainstream Indonesian Muslims. Some readers will be surprised by the list.
The 5 principles all seek to protect basic individual and social rights including: religious freedom, the sanctity of life, freedom of conscience and thought, property, and protection of the family unit.
I challenge any reader to find anything in these 5 basic principles which in any way conflicts with liberal democratic values or the so-called “Judeo-Christian” ethics. Nowhere does Falaakh make mention of stoning adulterers or chopping the hands of thieves.
Nor is there mention of killing innocent civilians or encouraging young people to translate frustration and depression into suicide attacks. The ideology which underpins terrorism is alien to Indonesian Islam.
No soldiers or swords were involved in the spread of Islam in this part of the world. Some 7 centuries ago, Yemeni traders settled in Malaya, Aceh and Sumatra and found each area dominated by tribes fighting each other over trade disputes.
The Yemenis introduced a common system of numeracy and accounting which resolved many commercial disputes in this mercantile ethnically-Malay society. Yemenis also introduced Sharia, an Arabic word which literally means “the way to the watering place”.
Yet for the Yemenis, Sharia was about resolving commercial disputes through mediation and arbitration. And all understanding of Sharia was in the context of the orthodox sufi traditions which the Yemenis espoused.
The most influential tribe of Yemenis to settle in the region were the “Bani Alawi” who were direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad through his great grandson Ali bin Husayn (known as “Zainal Abidin” or “Prince of the Worshippers”). Today, the Bani Alawi dominate Malaysian and Indonesian politics, judiciary and legal profession. A former Indonesian President, Abdurrahman Wahid, was from the Bani Alawi.
Bani Alawi Islam is the most orthodox form of Islam practised in the region. It is grounded in the traditions of sufi spirituality. Sufis emphasise spiritual purification through service to the community. They encourage Muslims to work with people of all faiths and no faith in particular to achieve justice and a better life for all people.
The sufi message spread across the region. Today, Muslim Indonesians continue to practice many of their old Hindu customs. These include celebration of Deepavali, involving a shadow puppet re-enactment of the famous Hindu Ramayana epic.
Pseudo-conservative hate-filled commentators such as Mark Steyn claim that this very Islam is the cause of the terror. He sees the world as being divided into 2 camps:
Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact.
Steyn clearly hasn’t a clue about the various interpretations of a faith that claims over 1.2 billion souls across the planet. As such, each terrorist incident gives hate-mongers like Steyn an opportunity to beat the drums of civilisational war.
Thankfully, Steyn, Pipes and others are in a minority (even if they frequently pollute the op-ed pages of major Australian newspapers). Serious scholars of Indonesian culture and politics know that terrorists are hated and loathed across the country.
SBY was not elected President purely on the basis of his singing voice. Rather, it was his commitment to getting tough on terrorism that got him over the line. Indonesian voters understand that terrorism means long term economic and political instability, not to mention short term death and destruction.
And by striking on Bali during sacred Hindu and Muslim seasons, the terrorists have shown complete disdain for Indonesian culture and religion. Yet they claim to carry out their attacks in the name of Islam. It’s enough to make the Bani Alawi tribesmen turn in their graves.
The author is a Sydney industrial lawyer and occasional lecturer at the School of Politics & International Relations at Macquarie University. He is also a columnist for the Adelaide-based Australian Islamic Review.
© Irfan Yusuf 2005
For Hindus, this is the sacred season leading upto Deepavali, a celebration of the victory of good over evil.
But in Bali, Indonesian Muslims and Hindus will be mourning the loss of loved ones during this sacred season. It seems the terrorists have won again.
Or have they? The New York Times website carried a series of photographs showing Muslims and Hindus marching side-by-side against terrorists. Terrorists want Muslim and Hindu to fight and kill each other. In Bali, the attacks have had the opposite effect.
Islam in Indonesia is largely a peaceful affair. And no, I am not engaging in empty apologetics. This is real.
In 2002, the conservative Centre for Independent Studies invited a senior official from the largest Islamic organisation in the world, the Nahdatul Ulama (meaning literally “Council of Religious Scholars”).
Muhammad Fajrul Falaakh studied in London, the United States and in a traditional Indonesian religious school. He spoke in the Great Hall of the New Zealand Parliament on 11 December 2002 on the topic of “Islam In Pluralist Indonesia”.
It is timely at this time to remind ourselves of Falaakh’s message on that occasion. He outlined 5 basic principles of Sharia law as understood by mainstream Indonesian Muslims. Some readers will be surprised by the list.
The 5 principles all seek to protect basic individual and social rights including: religious freedom, the sanctity of life, freedom of conscience and thought, property, and protection of the family unit.
I challenge any reader to find anything in these 5 basic principles which in any way conflicts with liberal democratic values or the so-called “Judeo-Christian” ethics. Nowhere does Falaakh make mention of stoning adulterers or chopping the hands of thieves.
Nor is there mention of killing innocent civilians or encouraging young people to translate frustration and depression into suicide attacks. The ideology which underpins terrorism is alien to Indonesian Islam.
No soldiers or swords were involved in the spread of Islam in this part of the world. Some 7 centuries ago, Yemeni traders settled in Malaya, Aceh and Sumatra and found each area dominated by tribes fighting each other over trade disputes.
The Yemenis introduced a common system of numeracy and accounting which resolved many commercial disputes in this mercantile ethnically-Malay society. Yemenis also introduced Sharia, an Arabic word which literally means “the way to the watering place”.
Yet for the Yemenis, Sharia was about resolving commercial disputes through mediation and arbitration. And all understanding of Sharia was in the context of the orthodox sufi traditions which the Yemenis espoused.
The most influential tribe of Yemenis to settle in the region were the “Bani Alawi” who were direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad through his great grandson Ali bin Husayn (known as “Zainal Abidin” or “Prince of the Worshippers”). Today, the Bani Alawi dominate Malaysian and Indonesian politics, judiciary and legal profession. A former Indonesian President, Abdurrahman Wahid, was from the Bani Alawi.
Bani Alawi Islam is the most orthodox form of Islam practised in the region. It is grounded in the traditions of sufi spirituality. Sufis emphasise spiritual purification through service to the community. They encourage Muslims to work with people of all faiths and no faith in particular to achieve justice and a better life for all people.
The sufi message spread across the region. Today, Muslim Indonesians continue to practice many of their old Hindu customs. These include celebration of Deepavali, involving a shadow puppet re-enactment of the famous Hindu Ramayana epic.
Pseudo-conservative hate-filled commentators such as Mark Steyn claim that this very Islam is the cause of the terror. He sees the world as being divided into 2 camps:
Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact.
Steyn clearly hasn’t a clue about the various interpretations of a faith that claims over 1.2 billion souls across the planet. As such, each terrorist incident gives hate-mongers like Steyn an opportunity to beat the drums of civilisational war.
Thankfully, Steyn, Pipes and others are in a minority (even if they frequently pollute the op-ed pages of major Australian newspapers). Serious scholars of Indonesian culture and politics know that terrorists are hated and loathed across the country.
SBY was not elected President purely on the basis of his singing voice. Rather, it was his commitment to getting tough on terrorism that got him over the line. Indonesian voters understand that terrorism means long term economic and political instability, not to mention short term death and destruction.
And by striking on Bali during sacred Hindu and Muslim seasons, the terrorists have shown complete disdain for Indonesian culture and religion. Yet they claim to carry out their attacks in the name of Islam. It’s enough to make the Bani Alawi tribesmen turn in their graves.
The author is a Sydney industrial lawyer and occasional lecturer at the School of Politics & International Relations at Macquarie University. He is also a columnist for the Adelaide-based Australian Islamic Review.
© Irfan Yusuf 2005
Sunday, October 02, 2005
The Greying, the Ambitious and the Downright Weird!
So you have reached a brick wall in your life. You have little to do when you come home from work or uni (if indeed you are working or studying). The happy pills aren’t quite working. Your therapist is boring the shit out of you. You need something to fill in the time.
How about joining a political party?
You might think I am being a bit cynical. But seriously, political parties are crying out for people on the social fringe. Because mainstream Aussies and Kiwis, especially young people, are keeping well away from political parties.
Aubrey Belford made these observations in a recent op-ed piece published in the Australian Financial Review on 23 September 2005. Belford was described as a Sydney Uni student, a writer and former ALP member. He may be from the wrong side of politics (whatever that means), but his observations are certainly worth considering.
Belford’s subject is “disengagement from politics”. Actually, it is more about apathy toward political parties. Belford acknowledges that young people do have strong views about the world, politics, life and other contingencies.
Ah, life and other contingencies! The last time I heard that phrase was when I was considering transferred from law to actuarial studies at Macquarie University. Thank God my grade-point average was too low!
Yes, young people are worried about global warming, the melting of the polar ice caps, bird flu, tsunamis and unfair dismissal. The problem is that they cannot find an outlet for their frustration inside the hallowed halls of mainstream political parties.
Now I have been involved in some awesome political parties over the years. In May, I was lucky enough to be at a huge political party at the office of Joe Hockey, a young Liberal MP from North Sydney (via Armenia and Palestine). There was plenty of piss, cornchips and nice young lasses from various campuses. It was probably the best fun I ever had in a political party.
The problem is that the Liberal Party branches aren’t exactly a huge party. If you don’t believe me, go and find out.
The NSW Young Liberals are supposed to be the youth wing of the party. Yet their policies are more racist, more homophobic and more old-fashioned than Janette Howard’s tea-set purchased from the Eastwood op-shop.
The national president of the Young Liberals works for probably the most conservative Liberal MP in Australia. David Clarke is a man who makes Tony Abbott look like the Argentine dentist from that movie “The Motorcycle Diaries” (what was his name? Che Geriatric?).
These days, recruitment in the Young Liberals consists of sniffing around some fringe ethno-religious wacko group, delivering a speech in the upper house praising their hatred of Islam and then organising an inaugural meeting to get their dumb and dumbest into the new branch.
Some 8 years back, I presided over the Bankstown Young Liberals. The branch was eventually shut down for technical constitutional reasons. Then in April 2004, the then NSW Young Liberal President Alex Hawke and his gang tried to revive the branch using pro-Ustazi youth. It seems anti-Muslim rhetoric of Hawke and his boss was insufficient to get enough numbers, and his internal small “l” liberal opponents managed to out-stack him. The resulting punch-up was captured on someone’s phone camera, to the eternal embarrassment of senior liberals.
I saw Hawke the following night at a Young Liberal Council meeting at the Ryde Eastwood Leagues Club. He did not have much to report on the previous night’s proceedings.
Then again, the ALP aren’t much better. I was on the verge of joining the ALP in 1993. That was until I received a phone call from someone introducing himself as Joseph.
“Mate, we need you to come on down to the Mekong Club. I’ll send you a cab if you like. The membership is all taken care of. How quickly can you get here? You’re Lebanese, aren’t you?”
It seems that if you have a slightly wog-of-Aussie background, the only real role you can play is that of branch stacker (or as Bronwyn Bishop calls it, “bomb thrower”). And if you try and do anything more, watch out! They might just send ASIO around to detain you in your house. Or if the ALP win the federal next election, Bomber Beazley might cordon off your suburb from the rest of the planet!
Political parties are not places for mainstream political cows to graze. They are more suited to people whom Aubrey Belford describes as “the greying, the ambitious and the downright weird”.
So what should you do if you want to involve yourself in politics without falling asleep? Perhaps you can start by enrolling in one of Dr Stephen Mutch’s courses at Macquarie University. Or you can read the Fin Review when you can afford it.
Or you can do what I do. Go watch that stupid Motorcycle Diaries movie with a bunch of basket weavers at the Valhalla in Byron Bay (or was that Glebe? Dunno, was too full of gunja to tell the difference!). When they get to the bit where Che is helping to heal the lepers, scream out: “He was a f#cking dentist, you stupid morons!”.
Irfan Yusuf solicits, comments and writes from time to time. He was Liberal candidate for Reid in 2001 and has since allowed his Liberal Party membership to lapse. When not working, he likes to sleep.
© Irfan Yusuf 2005
How about joining a political party?
You might think I am being a bit cynical. But seriously, political parties are crying out for people on the social fringe. Because mainstream Aussies and Kiwis, especially young people, are keeping well away from political parties.
Aubrey Belford made these observations in a recent op-ed piece published in the Australian Financial Review on 23 September 2005. Belford was described as a Sydney Uni student, a writer and former ALP member. He may be from the wrong side of politics (whatever that means), but his observations are certainly worth considering.
Belford’s subject is “disengagement from politics”. Actually, it is more about apathy toward political parties. Belford acknowledges that young people do have strong views about the world, politics, life and other contingencies.
Ah, life and other contingencies! The last time I heard that phrase was when I was considering transferred from law to actuarial studies at Macquarie University. Thank God my grade-point average was too low!
Yes, young people are worried about global warming, the melting of the polar ice caps, bird flu, tsunamis and unfair dismissal. The problem is that they cannot find an outlet for their frustration inside the hallowed halls of mainstream political parties.
Now I have been involved in some awesome political parties over the years. In May, I was lucky enough to be at a huge political party at the office of Joe Hockey, a young Liberal MP from North Sydney (via Armenia and Palestine). There was plenty of piss, cornchips and nice young lasses from various campuses. It was probably the best fun I ever had in a political party.
The problem is that the Liberal Party branches aren’t exactly a huge party. If you don’t believe me, go and find out.
The NSW Young Liberals are supposed to be the youth wing of the party. Yet their policies are more racist, more homophobic and more old-fashioned than Janette Howard’s tea-set purchased from the Eastwood op-shop.
The national president of the Young Liberals works for probably the most conservative Liberal MP in Australia. David Clarke is a man who makes Tony Abbott look like the Argentine dentist from that movie “The Motorcycle Diaries” (what was his name? Che Geriatric?).
These days, recruitment in the Young Liberals consists of sniffing around some fringe ethno-religious wacko group, delivering a speech in the upper house praising their hatred of Islam and then organising an inaugural meeting to get their dumb and dumbest into the new branch.
Some 8 years back, I presided over the Bankstown Young Liberals. The branch was eventually shut down for technical constitutional reasons. Then in April 2004, the then NSW Young Liberal President Alex Hawke and his gang tried to revive the branch using pro-Ustazi youth. It seems anti-Muslim rhetoric of Hawke and his boss was insufficient to get enough numbers, and his internal small “l” liberal opponents managed to out-stack him. The resulting punch-up was captured on someone’s phone camera, to the eternal embarrassment of senior liberals.
I saw Hawke the following night at a Young Liberal Council meeting at the Ryde Eastwood Leagues Club. He did not have much to report on the previous night’s proceedings.
Then again, the ALP aren’t much better. I was on the verge of joining the ALP in 1993. That was until I received a phone call from someone introducing himself as Joseph.
“Mate, we need you to come on down to the Mekong Club. I’ll send you a cab if you like. The membership is all taken care of. How quickly can you get here? You’re Lebanese, aren’t you?”
It seems that if you have a slightly wog-of-Aussie background, the only real role you can play is that of branch stacker (or as Bronwyn Bishop calls it, “bomb thrower”). And if you try and do anything more, watch out! They might just send ASIO around to detain you in your house. Or if the ALP win the federal next election, Bomber Beazley might cordon off your suburb from the rest of the planet!
Political parties are not places for mainstream political cows to graze. They are more suited to people whom Aubrey Belford describes as “the greying, the ambitious and the downright weird”.
So what should you do if you want to involve yourself in politics without falling asleep? Perhaps you can start by enrolling in one of Dr Stephen Mutch’s courses at Macquarie University. Or you can read the Fin Review when you can afford it.
Or you can do what I do. Go watch that stupid Motorcycle Diaries movie with a bunch of basket weavers at the Valhalla in Byron Bay (or was that Glebe? Dunno, was too full of gunja to tell the difference!). When they get to the bit where Che is helping to heal the lepers, scream out: “He was a f#cking dentist, you stupid morons!”.
Irfan Yusuf solicits, comments and writes from time to time. He was Liberal candidate for Reid in 2001 and has since allowed his Liberal Party membership to lapse. When not working, he likes to sleep.
© Irfan Yusuf 2005
Friday, September 02, 2005
On mail order brides & suicides – why Liberal Party culture and not the media are to blame for the Brogden downfall
This week, all talk was on John Brogden’s resignation from the position of Leader of the Parliamentary Wing of the NSW Liberal Party, followed by his suicide attempt. Much has been said about the role of the media, particularly Daily Telegraph editor David Penberthy.
On Radio National’s Breakfast Program with Fran Kelly (Friday 2 September 2005), former Sydney Morning Herald journalist Margot Kingston described Penberthy as young and irresponsible. She even suggested he be investigated by the NSW police for some kind of offence. It all sounded a little over-the-top, the sort of thing I would say at 3am after becoming intoxicated by fumes.
So who really is responsible? Why did John try to take his life? Who is responsible? Can anyone other than John’s exceptionally low mood be responsible?
The Story
People don’t commit suicide in an emotional and psychological vacuum. John wasn’t the most religious person on earth, but he did have strong Catholic values. John also had a zest for life, and his performance in the polls gave him everything to live for.
Yet eventually news broke out of his comments regarding Mrs Helena Carr as well of his approaches to some female journalists. Then later, other incidents were reported.
So where did Daily Telegraph journalists get this stuff from? Did they make it up? Did they pull it out of the air? Who told them and why?
My Disclosure
Before I address these questions, I may as well reveal my biases and disclose my interests. I am a former Liberal candidate for Reid. I was a Liberal Party member from 1993 to 2003 when I allowed my membership to lapse.
In 2001, I was the sole legitimate pre-selection candidate and should have been endorsed as the Liberal candidate for Auburn in the by-election. I was defamed in a column by Telegraph columnist Piers Akerman, who described me as the “local Moslem” and could not even spell my name correctly.
In 2003, I was threatened with defamation by a journalist for the Daily Telegraph. I received a letter from a News Limited lawyer which I still have.
Apart from being a former young liberal, I am also a columnist for an online US-based progressive Muslim magazine and for a local Muslim newspaper. I take the reputation of my faith community very seriously, even if I do not practise my faith as much as I should.
The Telegraph has been at the forefront of offending Muslim sentiments. In Muslim circles, the Telegraph is often seen as the enemy. A certain DT columnist referred to above is often lampooned as “Piersed Akumen” on discussion forums.
So with that in mind, it is obvious what my view is on the whole incident with John Brogden.
Not So Obvious View
My view is that David Penberthy, editor of the DT, was simply allowing to go to print what his reporters had heard from Liberal Party sources.
Should Penberthy have printed this stuff after Brogden resigned? I don’t know. But what I d know is that Penberthy is not responsible for Brogden’s suicide attempt.
Better Man
As I write these lines, Mr Brogden is recovering and receiving therapy in a private psychiatric clinic. Hopefully, he will learn about Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and other psychological self-help mechanisms for dealing with depression and other mood disorders.
I hope that John will come out of all this a better man. I hope this will be his “Rumi syndrome”, a chance for him to regain his soul and get on with a better life. I hope he comes out of this a bigger and better person than he was before this experience.
I can sympathise with Brogden. I have been a carer for people with psychiatric illnesses, and I myself have suffered in the past from a physical illness with long-term damage which I am still learning to deal with. But I can also say from experience that these things make you a better person.
Blaming the Messenger, Not the Message-Monger
The Liberal Party should stop blaming the media for all this. At the end of the day, the real people at fault are the Young Liberal “Taliban” who peddle these stories to anyone who will listen.
Alex Hawke has spread rumours about me personally. He and his colleagues once put out a shitsheet about me describing me as a “fat smelly Pakistani”. He has told people that I am linked to Islamist extremists. He even suggested that my decision to appoint a manager to my legal practise after falling ill was in fact caused by my being “struck off” for dipping my hands illegally into the trust account.
(Of course, the sheer falsehood of this allegation became apparent when I was offered a contract by the NSW Attorney-General’s Department. I was to be a Senior Legal Officer with the Office of the Protective Commissioner, looking after the estates of some of the most vulnerable people in NSW. The AGD is the Department that empowers and overseas the operations of the Law Society of NSW. Had I in fact been struck off, why would the AGD place me in such a responsible role?)
Liberals Leaving in Droves
Hawke and others drove out the mild centre-right forces of the non-Group out of the Party. I will never forget seeing Hawke publicly humiliate a long-time party member Fran Quinn at a meeting in 2003. I have seen him stab his own young liberal branch president in the back on the eve of her retiring and handing him the presidency. I have seen him stacking out non-Group Young Liberal branches ad driving his opponents out of the party through rumours, innuendo and even threats of physical violence.
Between November 2001 and the present, at least 7 former non-Group Young Liberal branch presidents have resigned from the Party or allowed their membership to lapse. They include former prominent Liberal student activists, lawyers, public servants, community workers, teachers, ordinary decent Australians from all walks of life. They include 3 former Federal Liberal candidates and former staffers to State and Federal Parliamentarians and Ministers.
Then there are former members of the Senior Party from the non-Group faction who have resigned or driven out of the party thanks to Hawke and his employer. These people have had rumours and innuendo spread about their partners, their families, their health etc. Sometimes their employers have been contacted deliberately. At other times, they are threatened with being outed on sexual and other private issues.
Name Them!
The real people to blame for the suffering of John Brogden and his family are … well … yes I will name them. The real people to blame are Alex Hawke, his employer and other members of the extreme-right faction. The Liberal Party must hold an inquiry into these people and their activities. I would be happy to give evidence at such an inquiry.
More Personal Disclosures
It is true that I was once a factional warrior for the non-Group forces of the Young Liberals and the Party in NSW. I published a newsletter entitled “Westerly Winds” and followed it up with a magazine entitled “pro-Action”. I used the pages of these magazines to lambast the Group and the Taliban-right.
But factionalism must have its limits. I have learnt with experience and the wisdom of age that this sort of behaviour should be left on campuses. The Group lost power in the NSW Liberal Party because they took this personal approach. Now they are licking their wounds. The neo-Con hard-right are now doing the same. They could suffer the same fate.
Conclusion
The Liberal Party needs to change its culture. It needs to rid itself of those wishing to defame and destroy reputation unreasonably. Politics is a dirty game. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But why make the kitchen so hot that even the chefs are leaving and the pots are melting?
The Liberal Party should ensure that factionalism should not turn nasty. It should also limit the extent to which persons can talk to the media. The power to talk to the media should be removed from the Young Liberal President. We have seen this power abused by Young Liberal presidents from all sides.
Finally, the Party should move to expel Alex Hawke. Mr Hawke has made the job of the NSW Parliamentary Liberal Party all that much harder. Hawke’s employer should be told in no uncertain terms that Hawke must be dismissed for misconduct. If David Clarke refuses to sack Hawke, Clarke should himself face an internal Party inquiry.
Will the Party take these much-needed measures? Let’s wait and see.
(The author has authored op-ed pieces published in the Daily Telegraph, Canberra Times, New Zealand Herald, Australian Financial Review and Sydney Morning Herald. He is a columnist for OnlineOpinion.com.au and altmuslim.com. He was endorsed Liberal Candidate for Reid in the 2001 Federal Elections, achieving a swing of 5.1% on a budget of $6,000. He currently practises industrial and human rights law.)
© Irfan Yusuf
On Radio National’s Breakfast Program with Fran Kelly (Friday 2 September 2005), former Sydney Morning Herald journalist Margot Kingston described Penberthy as young and irresponsible. She even suggested he be investigated by the NSW police for some kind of offence. It all sounded a little over-the-top, the sort of thing I would say at 3am after becoming intoxicated by fumes.
So who really is responsible? Why did John try to take his life? Who is responsible? Can anyone other than John’s exceptionally low mood be responsible?
The Story
People don’t commit suicide in an emotional and psychological vacuum. John wasn’t the most religious person on earth, but he did have strong Catholic values. John also had a zest for life, and his performance in the polls gave him everything to live for.
Yet eventually news broke out of his comments regarding Mrs Helena Carr as well of his approaches to some female journalists. Then later, other incidents were reported.
So where did Daily Telegraph journalists get this stuff from? Did they make it up? Did they pull it out of the air? Who told them and why?
My Disclosure
Before I address these questions, I may as well reveal my biases and disclose my interests. I am a former Liberal candidate for Reid. I was a Liberal Party member from 1993 to 2003 when I allowed my membership to lapse.
In 2001, I was the sole legitimate pre-selection candidate and should have been endorsed as the Liberal candidate for Auburn in the by-election. I was defamed in a column by Telegraph columnist Piers Akerman, who described me as the “local Moslem” and could not even spell my name correctly.
In 2003, I was threatened with defamation by a journalist for the Daily Telegraph. I received a letter from a News Limited lawyer which I still have.
Apart from being a former young liberal, I am also a columnist for an online US-based progressive Muslim magazine and for a local Muslim newspaper. I take the reputation of my faith community very seriously, even if I do not practise my faith as much as I should.
The Telegraph has been at the forefront of offending Muslim sentiments. In Muslim circles, the Telegraph is often seen as the enemy. A certain DT columnist referred to above is often lampooned as “Piersed Akumen” on discussion forums.
So with that in mind, it is obvious what my view is on the whole incident with John Brogden.
Not So Obvious View
My view is that David Penberthy, editor of the DT, was simply allowing to go to print what his reporters had heard from Liberal Party sources.
Should Penberthy have printed this stuff after Brogden resigned? I don’t know. But what I d know is that Penberthy is not responsible for Brogden’s suicide attempt.
Better Man
As I write these lines, Mr Brogden is recovering and receiving therapy in a private psychiatric clinic. Hopefully, he will learn about Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and other psychological self-help mechanisms for dealing with depression and other mood disorders.
I hope that John will come out of all this a better man. I hope this will be his “Rumi syndrome”, a chance for him to regain his soul and get on with a better life. I hope he comes out of this a bigger and better person than he was before this experience.
I can sympathise with Brogden. I have been a carer for people with psychiatric illnesses, and I myself have suffered in the past from a physical illness with long-term damage which I am still learning to deal with. But I can also say from experience that these things make you a better person.
Blaming the Messenger, Not the Message-Monger
The Liberal Party should stop blaming the media for all this. At the end of the day, the real people at fault are the Young Liberal “Taliban” who peddle these stories to anyone who will listen.
Alex Hawke has spread rumours about me personally. He and his colleagues once put out a shitsheet about me describing me as a “fat smelly Pakistani”. He has told people that I am linked to Islamist extremists. He even suggested that my decision to appoint a manager to my legal practise after falling ill was in fact caused by my being “struck off” for dipping my hands illegally into the trust account.
(Of course, the sheer falsehood of this allegation became apparent when I was offered a contract by the NSW Attorney-General’s Department. I was to be a Senior Legal Officer with the Office of the Protective Commissioner, looking after the estates of some of the most vulnerable people in NSW. The AGD is the Department that empowers and overseas the operations of the Law Society of NSW. Had I in fact been struck off, why would the AGD place me in such a responsible role?)
Liberals Leaving in Droves
Hawke and others drove out the mild centre-right forces of the non-Group out of the Party. I will never forget seeing Hawke publicly humiliate a long-time party member Fran Quinn at a meeting in 2003. I have seen him stab his own young liberal branch president in the back on the eve of her retiring and handing him the presidency. I have seen him stacking out non-Group Young Liberal branches ad driving his opponents out of the party through rumours, innuendo and even threats of physical violence.
Between November 2001 and the present, at least 7 former non-Group Young Liberal branch presidents have resigned from the Party or allowed their membership to lapse. They include former prominent Liberal student activists, lawyers, public servants, community workers, teachers, ordinary decent Australians from all walks of life. They include 3 former Federal Liberal candidates and former staffers to State and Federal Parliamentarians and Ministers.
Then there are former members of the Senior Party from the non-Group faction who have resigned or driven out of the party thanks to Hawke and his employer. These people have had rumours and innuendo spread about their partners, their families, their health etc. Sometimes their employers have been contacted deliberately. At other times, they are threatened with being outed on sexual and other private issues.
Name Them!
The real people to blame for the suffering of John Brogden and his family are … well … yes I will name them. The real people to blame are Alex Hawke, his employer and other members of the extreme-right faction. The Liberal Party must hold an inquiry into these people and their activities. I would be happy to give evidence at such an inquiry.
More Personal Disclosures
It is true that I was once a factional warrior for the non-Group forces of the Young Liberals and the Party in NSW. I published a newsletter entitled “Westerly Winds” and followed it up with a magazine entitled “pro-Action”. I used the pages of these magazines to lambast the Group and the Taliban-right.
But factionalism must have its limits. I have learnt with experience and the wisdom of age that this sort of behaviour should be left on campuses. The Group lost power in the NSW Liberal Party because they took this personal approach. Now they are licking their wounds. The neo-Con hard-right are now doing the same. They could suffer the same fate.
Conclusion
The Liberal Party needs to change its culture. It needs to rid itself of those wishing to defame and destroy reputation unreasonably. Politics is a dirty game. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But why make the kitchen so hot that even the chefs are leaving and the pots are melting?
The Liberal Party should ensure that factionalism should not turn nasty. It should also limit the extent to which persons can talk to the media. The power to talk to the media should be removed from the Young Liberal President. We have seen this power abused by Young Liberal presidents from all sides.
Finally, the Party should move to expel Alex Hawke. Mr Hawke has made the job of the NSW Parliamentary Liberal Party all that much harder. Hawke’s employer should be told in no uncertain terms that Hawke must be dismissed for misconduct. If David Clarke refuses to sack Hawke, Clarke should himself face an internal Party inquiry.
Will the Party take these much-needed measures? Let’s wait and see.
(The author has authored op-ed pieces published in the Daily Telegraph, Canberra Times, New Zealand Herald, Australian Financial Review and Sydney Morning Herald. He is a columnist for OnlineOpinion.com.au and altmuslim.com. He was endorsed Liberal Candidate for Reid in the 2001 Federal Elections, achieving a swing of 5.1% on a budget of $6,000. He currently practises industrial and human rights law.)
© Irfan Yusuf
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Bali Burqa Hysteria
It is not uncommon to see an accused person being led out of court or out of a paddy wagon with their face covered. It could be a rolled up t-shirt or a cardigan loosely draped over one’s face.
Regardless of whether an accused is eventually found innocent, a photograph in a newspaper or a glimpse on a TV screen can condemn an accused to life imprisonment by the court of public opinion.
It is little wonder, therefore, that Australian model Michelle Leslie chose to cover her face when appearing in public. Yet rumours concerning her motivation reveal a disturbing undercurrent of ignorance and prejudice of the type that recently led 2 Liberal backbenchers to call for a reversal of 30 years of legislative human rights consensus.
Has Michelle Leslie converted to Islam? Is her adoption of a “burqa” a reflection of a conversion on the road to Denpasar? Is she trying to get out of life imprisonment? Or is she perhaps attempting to escape the firing squad?
A few points need to be remembered. Indonesia may be the largest Muslim country in the world. But Bali is a Hindu-majority island.
Indonesian Muslims and Hindus traditionally cover their hair with a tudung. This is a piece of cloth also commonly worn in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. It has only incidental relevance to religious faith.
Many Indonesian Muslim women do not cover their hair. And hardly any would wear a black “burqa” as worn more commonly in Saudi Arabia. Indonesian Islam tends to be far more liberal when it comes to relations between the sexes. It is not uncommon to see unmarried Indonesian couples openly dating and holding hands in public.
Of course, there is a minority interpretation of Islam which encourages women to cover their face. If indeed Ms Leslie has adopted Islam, she may be following this interpretation on the issue of covering her hair.
But is religious conversion such a big deal? After all, Schapelle Corby is known to have adopted Christianity during her detention. It has been reported that she regularly attends church services in prison. Her conversion raised few eyebrows in Australia or Indonesia.
Indeed, the chief judge who sentenced Ms Corby (and who will more than likely hear the Leslie trial) is a Christian who said he could sleep soundly at night after delivering the harsh sentence.
The media frenzy surrounding Leslie’s dress must prove unhelpful to her lawyers. Religion is a sensitive issue in Indonesia at the best of times. Yet some newspapers are making a huge issue of Leslie’s “burqa”, perhaps for the same base reasons that Mrs Bishop described supporters of hijabs as akin to Nazis.
Following the Corby trial, many Australians were dismayed when a parcel containing suspicious white powder was delivered to the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra. The incident, perhaps a direct result of irresponsible media storm, proved exceedingly embarrassing to the Australian government. Even more embarrassing were calls made by some Australians for the government to seek a refund of tsunami-related aid.
The frenzy did Ms Corby’s cause no good. The current frenzy over Ms Leslie’s head dress does her cause no good either. Some Australian media outlets should decide whether they wish to compromise the life of an Australian citizen simply because of her alleged conversion to an undesirable religion.
But worse still, the reactions and comments regarding Ms Leslie’s alleged conversion and dress must be exceptionally distressing to her family. It is hard enough knowing that your daughter or sister could face the firing squad. To then see her dress and presumed choice of religion being lampooned only serves to multiply the trauma.
Australian media outlets should display a far greater degree of sensitivity in how they report such matters. They should remember that selling newspapers and generating advertising revenue are not as important as ensuring the life and liberty of a citizen. In the long run, throwing cheap shots at an accused person’s dress does little to improve our image amongst our neighbours.
Just as we would not like Indonesians to stereotype our culture, we should not stereotype what we presume to be their religion.
iyusuf@sydneylawyers.com.au
© Irfan Yusuf 2005
Regardless of whether an accused is eventually found innocent, a photograph in a newspaper or a glimpse on a TV screen can condemn an accused to life imprisonment by the court of public opinion.
It is little wonder, therefore, that Australian model Michelle Leslie chose to cover her face when appearing in public. Yet rumours concerning her motivation reveal a disturbing undercurrent of ignorance and prejudice of the type that recently led 2 Liberal backbenchers to call for a reversal of 30 years of legislative human rights consensus.
Has Michelle Leslie converted to Islam? Is her adoption of a “burqa” a reflection of a conversion on the road to Denpasar? Is she trying to get out of life imprisonment? Or is she perhaps attempting to escape the firing squad?
A few points need to be remembered. Indonesia may be the largest Muslim country in the world. But Bali is a Hindu-majority island.
Indonesian Muslims and Hindus traditionally cover their hair with a tudung. This is a piece of cloth also commonly worn in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. It has only incidental relevance to religious faith.
Many Indonesian Muslim women do not cover their hair. And hardly any would wear a black “burqa” as worn more commonly in Saudi Arabia. Indonesian Islam tends to be far more liberal when it comes to relations between the sexes. It is not uncommon to see unmarried Indonesian couples openly dating and holding hands in public.
Of course, there is a minority interpretation of Islam which encourages women to cover their face. If indeed Ms Leslie has adopted Islam, she may be following this interpretation on the issue of covering her hair.
But is religious conversion such a big deal? After all, Schapelle Corby is known to have adopted Christianity during her detention. It has been reported that she regularly attends church services in prison. Her conversion raised few eyebrows in Australia or Indonesia.
Indeed, the chief judge who sentenced Ms Corby (and who will more than likely hear the Leslie trial) is a Christian who said he could sleep soundly at night after delivering the harsh sentence.
The media frenzy surrounding Leslie’s dress must prove unhelpful to her lawyers. Religion is a sensitive issue in Indonesia at the best of times. Yet some newspapers are making a huge issue of Leslie’s “burqa”, perhaps for the same base reasons that Mrs Bishop described supporters of hijabs as akin to Nazis.
Following the Corby trial, many Australians were dismayed when a parcel containing suspicious white powder was delivered to the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra. The incident, perhaps a direct result of irresponsible media storm, proved exceedingly embarrassing to the Australian government. Even more embarrassing were calls made by some Australians for the government to seek a refund of tsunami-related aid.
The frenzy did Ms Corby’s cause no good. The current frenzy over Ms Leslie’s head dress does her cause no good either. Some Australian media outlets should decide whether they wish to compromise the life of an Australian citizen simply because of her alleged conversion to an undesirable religion.
But worse still, the reactions and comments regarding Ms Leslie’s alleged conversion and dress must be exceptionally distressing to her family. It is hard enough knowing that your daughter or sister could face the firing squad. To then see her dress and presumed choice of religion being lampooned only serves to multiply the trauma.
Australian media outlets should display a far greater degree of sensitivity in how they report such matters. They should remember that selling newspapers and generating advertising revenue are not as important as ensuring the life and liberty of a citizen. In the long run, throwing cheap shots at an accused person’s dress does little to improve our image amongst our neighbours.
Just as we would not like Indonesians to stereotype our culture, we should not stereotype what we presume to be their religion.
iyusuf@sydneylawyers.com.au
© Irfan Yusuf 2005
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
