COMMENT: Loewenstein's novel?

An article on the Australian Jewish News website talks about Melbourne University Press publisher Louise Adler in rather non-complimentary terms.

Adler is one of a number of prominent Jews who has signed a petition saying she refuses to defend anything and everything the Israeli government or armed forces does. This naturally makes her unpopular in some Jewish circles.

Yet the real source of wrath toward Adler can be found here ...

Adler has been criticised in the past for publishing Antony Loewenstein’s anti-Zionist novel, My Israel Question. (emphasis mine)

Well, that's one novel way of attacking someone's book.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007



>

COMMENT: Reporting on Malaysian Politics

Last June, I found myself in Malaysia on an exchange program organised by the Australia-Malaysia Institute. Our program was managed by staff at the Australian High Commission.

Ours was one of a number of programs organised by AMI. Another program is organised specially for journalists. Someone associated with the journalists’ tour told me something very interesting about the attitudes of some Australian journalists. Here is what that officer told me, more or less …

I was with a group of other journalists to Kelantan state, which is currently ruled by the PAS Party [the Islamic Party of Malaysia]. They met with PAS officials and also with a group of non-Muslim PAS supporters called the PAS Supporters’ Club.

I was shocked by the behaviour of a number of the journos. One couldn’t believe how any non-Muslim could even consider supporting for PAS. He kept badgering a PAS supporter about the dangers of sharia law and how they could honestly accept status as second class citizens. Each time the PAS supporters explained why they supported PAS, this journalist would shake his head and say things like: “You must be brainwashed” and “How much are they paying you?”

A few weeks ago, I dined with a group of Malaysian journalists who were visiting Australia on an AMI exchange program. One was of Indian Catholic background from Kelantan. I asked him about PAS and non-Muslims. The journo told me about his father.

My dad is on the executive of our parish council. Before approaching PAS, he had been waiting for 8 years to get our church extensions approved. UMNO were in charge of planning in our state at that time. They kept making promises but my favour could never get anywhere with them.

Then PAS came into power. My father told his committee he wanted to approach the new Chief Minister. The committee told him to try but not to expect too much as this was an Islamic fundamentalist party and they would probably try and shut down the church.

My father approached the Chief Minister and told him about the problems he was having with the church extensions. The Minister listened careful, shook his head and apologised to my father.

“This is terrible. You have every right to worship, and we have no right to stop you. Let me see what I can do. We are all believers in God, and no believer in God should stop another believer from building a house for God.”

Within a week, we received confirmation of planning approval. My father was surprised. Later, he found out from Hindu friends of his that their contested temple approvals were also granted.

PAS and UMNO both compete for the Muslim vote. But UMNO shows its Islamic face by Malay chauvinism and making life difficult for non-Muslims. PAS shows their Islam by helping all religious people.

You won’t believe this, but the PAS Chief Minister comes to our special Mass services as much as he can. He also visits the opening of Hindu temples.

How can one explain this? Is PAS just making hard-headed political decisions? Are they being pragmatic? Quite possibly, yes. But this is the power of democratic government. Short of ethnic and religious cleansing, democratically elected governments have little or no choice but to ensure they seek and maintain support from as many sectors of the community as possible.

The problem with some Western journos and commentators is that they believe democracy doesn’t have enough strength to reign in religious parties. Others used their own sectarian prejudices to argue that anything even remotely resembling Islam can never sit comfortably with democracy.

Aussie journos and commentators reporting on Malaysian politics need to read more widely and think outside the square. Subscribing to news portals like Malaysiakini.com is a good start. Getting to know and understand the ethnic and religious landscape of the country is another. But whilst Aussie journos continue presuming that any group or party related to Islam is little more than an outlet of al-Qaeda or part of some international conspiracy to destroy the West, they really won’t get far.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

COMMENT: What the halal?

I was sitting in a McDonalds store in Drummoyne munching on a fillet-o-fish the other day when I decided it was time to insult my intelligence. I grabbed a copy of the Daily Telegraph and came across a report by Luke McIlveen that former Guantanamo inmate Mamdouh Habib had been apprehended by police at another McDonalds store in Bankstown .

McIlveen quoted police sources on the reasons for arrest. He also quoted a staff member at the McDonalds. McIlveen then inserted the following piece of information:

McDonald's outlets in the area are certified providers of halal food, catering for the large Muslim population.

What the ... ? What was the relevance of that to the story? Did Habib get arrested for having bacon on his otherwise halal burger? Were the police officers upset because he should have been at the mosque saying his afternoon prayers? Did the slaughtered cow from Habib's hamburger resurrect itself and complain to the police about its flesh being eaten by a former terrorism suspect?

Perhaps McDonalds stores keep the Tele to remind patrons that there is one thing in their stores containing more superfluous fat than their burgers ...

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

CRIKEY: How the tabloids made up the sample citizenship test ...

The Federal Government has today introduced a Bill to institute compulsory testing for Australian citizenship aspirants. And if we believe what we read in the tabloids, we already have a sample of questions that might be asked.

The Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph published sample questions on 18 May 2007, claiming they were

... [s]ample citizenship questions devised by the Federal Government.

The Herald Sun said it

... was given an exclusive insight into the likely content of the new test, to come into effect later this year.

Other News Limited tabloids also ran the “exclusive” sample questions. The Oz did not, and neither did the Fairfax press.

The Federal Government and DIAC were severely criticised in Crikey for the poorly drafted (and in some cases quite silly) questions. Muslim groups were also cited in the Daily Telegraph opposing the questions.

The Hez fired-up in its editorial section on 19 May:

Here's a quiz on Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' 20-question citizenship test for would-be Australians: It is a) a good idea; b) xenophobic and unfair; c) a waste of time.

If you answered a) you would be correct -- because there is no reason migrants who want to be citizens should not have a basic knowledge of Australian history and values.

The proposed questions, revealed in the Herald Sun, serve an important purpose.

They concentrate the minds of potential citizens on the need to know who we are and why being an Australian is a privilege.

Yet the reality is that neither the Minister nor DIAC had anything to do with the so-called “exclusive” sample questions. The Senate Standing Committee On Legal & Constitutional Affairs grilled DIAC officials in Estimates hearings on 22 May.

Indeed, on page 56 of the Hansard record, Minister for Human Services Senator Chris Ellison cites Kevin Andrews as declaring that the questions were

... constructed by the newspaper ... we haven’t yet even constructed the questions.

Departmental Secretary Andrew Metcalfe confirmed that DIAC’s media unit ...

... did not talk to the media about any of those issues ...

... even adding that ...

... the term ‘journalistic licence’ presumably exists for a reason.

He said further:

The information I have is that the test that was published in the newspapers was entirely invented by the media, but it is clearly based - following some research - on statements that had been made by the Minister about the topic ... I think that it could all be traced back to someone sitting down and saying 'The Minister has talked about certain things; what would a test look like?' and it moved on from there. But as far as I know, what has appeared in the media does not represent the questions that would actually be asked in the test itself. Why do I know that? Because those questions have not yet been framed (emphasis added).

In other words, the tabloids made the whole sample test up, passed it off to unsuspecting readers as “exclusive” and “devised by the Federal Government” before getting plenty of mileage off the back of the community's outrage to the fictional questions.

A version of this was first published in the Crikey daily alert for 30 May 2007.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: Tabloid Christmas distortions

Today’s Daily Telegraph takes its readers on an 11-paragraph journey to the Palestinian town of Beyt Lahm, the name meaning literally “house of lamb”. Entitled “Jesus’ birthplace under siege”, the editorial refers to the dwindling Palestinian population, not to mention a severe reduction in tourism.

The article speaks of

... reports of religious persecution, in the form of murders, beatings and land grabs ...

And who caused all this trouble?

The DT points the finger in one direction. Subsequent paragraphs speak of ...

... [t]he sense of a creeping Islamic fundamentalism.

This is evidenced by a ...

... mosque on one side of Manger Square … directly opposite the Greek Orthodox
and Roman Catholic churches.

And for how many centuries has this mosque been standing there?

Then there are references to shops selling Christian souvenirs having

... their shutters painted a sun-bleached green – the colour of Islam.

Try telling that to Shia Muslims in the Indian sub-Continent who regard black as the colour of their faith.

Finally, the editorial refers to

... a baubled Christmas tree in reception and a card showing the direction of Mecca in the rooms.

Hotels across the Middle East and Asia carry such cards. This is no more a sign of creeping fundamentalism than Gideons bibles in hotel rooms across the world (including nominally Muslim countries) is a sign of creeping Christian extremism. Observant Christians read the Bible. Observant Muslims pray to Mecca at various times. So what?

In the simpleton tabloid world of the Tele, can all world conflicts (including ones that don’t quite exist) only be explained as a giant crusade? And how does the Tele explain the fact that Bethlehemites (Christian and Muslim) themselves prefer to point to another entity as the cause of their suffering?

Was it Muslims who have been building a concrete wall separating Rachel’s tomb from the rest of the town, leading to the closure of 70-80 businesses?

Of course, no one can deny that a minority of crazy Muslims were burning churches in response to a recent speech by the Pope. Still, the last time Bethlehem’s mayor met with the Pope, it was to discuss the giant wall.

So who could have come up with such a distorted view of Bethlehem? The answer might be found here.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

The power of the distorted headline …

Same story. Two different headlines. Two different newspapers. Two different attitudes.

AAP Newswire carried a story about a special request to members of the community by the NSW Police’s Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad commander Detective Superintendent Ken McKay.

The request concerned a spate of shootings in Auburn. AAP Newswire made a slight error, referring to Auburn as a “south-western Sydney suburb”. In fact, Auburn is hardly a suburb or two away from Parramatta, and is regarded as being in the geographical heart of Sydney.

The story appeared on the website of the Sydney Morning Herald under the headline of “Mid-East community urged to help police”.

The story also appeared on the Sunday Telegraph’s website. And the headline? “Community urged to give up shooters”.

Nowhere in the story did anyone made any request of any community to give up anyone. The sole request reported in the story was:

We are urging the Middle Eastern community, particularly those families living in the Auburn area, to continue to provide us with valuable information which will help us to put a stop to these incidents.

The request was for information. The request was NOT for a community to give up people it is allegedly hiding. Nor does the request suggest the community knew who was responsible. All the police requested was “valuable information” that that could help them protect Auburn communities.

The Telegraph headline was written in a provocative manner, suggesting that Middle Eastern communities knew who was doing the shooting, and that these communities were hiding the culprits from police. In other words, the newspaper was suggesting that these communities were involved in the crimes.

How else does one explain the headline? Can Tim Blair or any other senior editor at the Tele explain the headline?

The same headline also appeared on the article reproduced on the website of The Australian. How do the editors of The Oz explain this? Is this yet another example of what certain Oz columnists describe as the perennial struggle between “conservative Islam and Western modernity”?

Some may say that this is just one headline of one story. Yet this is just one headline out of a long series of headlines. One needs only to read analyses such as those of Peter Manning to realise how destructive such choice headlines are.

Or maybe the News Limited people follow Hitler’s saying: “The grosser the lie, the more readily people believe it”!

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Dialogue with The Oz's opinion editor

Over the past three days or so, I have been having an interesting dialogue with the opinion page editor of The Australian over his choice of commentators on the Hilaly story. That dialogue has taken place via the daily alerts of the Crikey! portal.

The dialogue is reproduced (with all hyperlinks) in full below.

_______________________

Crikey!, 7 November 2006

Sheik Hilaly has called upon his fellow imams and other community members to find a better imam. On Sunday, I think I met one. The problem is he doesn’t live in Australia .

Sheik Hilaly claims to lead 360,000 Muslims. But the head of the Turkish presidency of Religious Affairs, Dr Ali Bardakoglu, presides over 180,000 imams in Turkey . He has worked as a judge, a lawyer, an academic and an imam. He’s the closest thing Europe has to an Islamic pope.

On Sunday, Dr Bardakoglu officially opened Sydney ’s newest mosque at Bonnyrigg. One of the first things he observed was his appreciation at the large number of Muslim women in the audience, not to mention the fact that the MC at the function was a Muslim woman.

I think it is absolutely necessary that mosques involve women at all levels and in all their activities. And religious leaders must never say things to offend women members of their congregations.

Was this comment a coincidence? A committee member of the Bonnyrigg Mosque told me that Dr Bardakoglu had been fully briefed about the Hilaly situation. Many Turkish Muslims I spoke to after the formalities were concluded (including those visiting from Melbourne and other interstate locations) expressed their disgust at Sheik Hilaly’s comments as well as his contradictory posturing.

Yet there are still a number of Muslims backing him. Waleed Aly writes that even Hilaly critics are upset at the barrage of media attention, not to mention infantile remarks by Sheik Peter bin Costello and Mufti Janet bint Albrechtsen, both of whom have held 360,000 Muslims jointly responsible for the failure of 500 Muslims taking their time responding to the Sheik’s comments.

The Oz’s editorial lynching of Sheik Hilaly is actually diminishing the chances of his removal. Today’s quotes Mick Keelty suggesting: “the value of reporting on the words of Sheik Hilali and others of his ilk is that they prompt moderate, middle-class Muslims to stand up and reject such retrograde views”.

Yet The Oz allows few of such Muslims on their op-ed page or in letters to the editor. Instead, it allows room for Albrechtsen and writers whose sole qualification is having sat in a Melbourne taxi driven by someone claiming to be a ‘moderate Muslim’.

___________________

Crikey!, 8 November 2006

The Australian's anti-Muslim operation is at it again, this time committing a "media lynching" of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali -- or so Crikey and others in the past week would have us believe. We suspect, however, that this tempest will founder on the good sense of the Australian people who deserve to be informed about the outrageous statements of the nation's leading Muslim cleric.

According to our critics, The Australian's decision to publish an English translation of Sheik Hilali's speech -- comparing immodestly dressed women to meat left out for cats, and blaming them for sexual assaults -- was wrong because it reinforced the world's current anxieties and fears.

Never mind that our story goes to the heart of one of the world's most intractable problems: the clash between conservative Islam and Western modernity, and specifically the concept of women's liberation and free relations between the sexes. Surely this is an issue worth reporting and debating in some detail.

Irfan Yusuf, writing in Crikey yesterday, says "The Oz allows few [moderate, middle-class Muslims] on their op-ed page" on this issue. Yet in the immediate aftermath of the publication of our exclusive story, we commissioned and published several "moderate, middle-class Muslims" to write the lead opinion-page articles: Abdullah Saaed, director of the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Islam at the University of Melbourne; Tanveer Ahmed, who is writing a book about Islam in Australia; Shakira Hussein, who is writing a PhD thesis on the Islamic treatment of women at the Australian National University.

All are moderates from within Australia's Muslim community who have publicly criticised the mufti's comments. (Incidentally, even of our usual critics Peter Manning, author of US and Them: A Journalist's Investigation of Media, Muslims and the Middle East, has defended The Australian's decision to cover the Sheik's comments, arguing that the quicker the Muslim community forgets its ethnic differences and works out a "genuinely indigenous Islam that is Australian", the better.)

Add to this the fact that we have published a variety of moderate Muslim voices over the years about the clash between conservative Islam and Western modernity -- from the Islamic Council of Victoria's Waleed Ali to widely acclaimed international author Irshad Manji -- and it is clear that The Australian has a much better track record on this issue than any other newspaper in the nation. For this, we are accused of "racism and religious bigotry". Go figure.

______________________

Crikey!, 9 November 2006

Yesterday, the opinion editor of The Oz Tom Switzer told us the world is divided along neat ideological lines between two allegedly monolithic entities of “conservative Islam” and “Western modernity”. Hence dangerously sexist attitudes of an irrelevant imam become part of this apocalyptic ideological struggle.

Switzer was present at the CIS Big Ideas Forum when the venerable Owen Harries gently castigated Mark Steyn for claiming a monolithic West existed. Harries correctly noted the intense rivalry and resentment underscoring relations between the EU and the United States .

Harries isn’t the first Western thinker to point out the diversity within Muslim cultures and Islamist political movements. Indeed, many (if not most) scholars of modern Islamist movements argue that the ideological basis of groups like al-Qaida is inherently modernist and heavily influenced by Western political thinking. Further, many neo-classical Muslim theologians state that much Islamist political thinking represents religious heresy.

Switzer’s arguably narrow ideological approach means his ability to recognise emerging Muslim voices is open to question, especially where such voices don’t make a neat fit into his misunderstanding of the enormous variations in both Western and Muslim cultures.

That isn’t to say that Australian contributors (Muslim or otherwise) to The Oz on such issues have been useless. Apart from Irshad Manji (rejected by even the most ‘progressive’ Muslim writers), The Oz’s commissioned contributors listed by Switzer have made important contributions. Arguably this has been in spite of and not because of Switzer’s simplistic assumptions about the West and the rest.

Still, Switzer at least is trying to understanding the issue. That’s more than can be said for FoxNews.

And it isn’t upto Switzer or anyone else at The Oz or any other newspaper to deal with Hilaly. Primary responsibility rests with Muslim leaders themselves.

And given Hilaly’s views on sexual violence are held by so many in mainstream Australia, it’s high time we as a broader Australian community focussed on the need to eliminate violence against women. That means focussing on unfortunate attitudes held by all prominent people. It also means focussing on all perpetrators. Turning this into a sectarian wedge issue by focussing on one set of perpetrators effectively involves ignoring a much larger set of victims.

MEDIA: The Oz manufactures Koranic verses

News Limited papers have recently reported the tragic tale of the Hussain family in Queensland. Originally from Adelaide, they are of Bangladeshi origin. As a result of some domestic dispute, the mother was killed from a stab wound to the chest. The father is in hospital in a critical condition.

The Oz’s report attempted to show the attack was occasioned by the girl’s wish to convert to Christianity. The only evidence for this was from a Southport neighbour of the family. The family had just moved into the area some 2 months ago.

A neighbours and a former employer of the mother in Adelaide also were quoted. The parents were described as strict, insisting their daughter achieve good academic results and enrol in a medical degree.

The Oz’s slant on the story amply illustrates what editors can do to manufacture a context. The girl’s description included that she ...

... spoke with an accent and did not wear hijab.

Bloody Bangladeshi migrants speaking in their bloody Islamic accents! Indeed, very few Bangladeshi women wear the hijab.

The report also claimed it was ...

... curious for devout Muslim parents ...

... to send children to a non-denominational Christian school with sound scholastic record. Yet hundreds of Muslim children are sent my parents to exclusive private schools.

Also mentioned were ...

... Islamic sweets ...

... which the mother allegedly made at the Indian restaurant where she worked. Just last week I visited a Canberra Indian spice shop and purchased Indian sweets. I didn’t bother to ask where the “Islamic sweets” were kept. Why? Because Islamic sweets just don’t exist! Indians of all faiths eat the same sweets.

Most disturbingly, the reporters claimed there was such a thing as ...

... Koran-sanctioned ritual killing to punish the rejection of Islam … One Koran passage quotes Mohammed as saying ‘whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him’.

The newspaper then alleged that a Gold Coast imam confirmed the verse existed and shouldn’t be taken literally. In fact, all he said was that any book approached with a “surface reading” would have contradictions.

In fact, no such verse exists. I challenge the authors and editors of The Oz to provide the exact reference. I also challenge them to provide evidence from classical and modern Muslim religious jurists showing Islamic sacred law sanctions killing daughters.

At the time of writing, no charges had been laid against any member of the family. The ABC report states that Qld police ...

... are not prepared to speculate on whether religion was a motive in the attacks.

However, News Limited papers are quite happy to speculate, even if it means manufacturing verses of scripture.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: Kerbaj’s Claytons Scoop

Richard Kerbaj has again “broken” a hot story about Muslim leaders. Sadly, it’s little more than extracting the tallest mountain from a microscopic mould hill.

No doubt The Oz’s hysterical front-page packaging of Dr Ali’s relatively benign remarks (not to mention the hysterical responses of caricatured sheiks) will assist in his re-appointment to the PM’s undemocratic handpicked Muslim Community Reference Group. But how revolutionary were Dr Ali’s words?

The gist of his message seems is that the Prophet Muhammad wasn’t perfect. But what kind of perfection is he talking about? Muslims agree that the Prophet was a perfect human (al-insan al-kaamil in Arabic). But the word for human (insan) itself means negligent. Muslims agree that, as a human being, the Prophet was perfect. Yet there are places in the Koran where he has been corrected in his conduct.

So how is this perfection to be worded? This is where the controversy among different Muslim denominations begins, whether in the Indian sub-Continent or the Middle East.

At worst, Dr Ali could be accused of using somewhat inappropriate language to describe the Prophet. He should have used more careful phrasing. Then again, had Sheik Hilaly bothered to learn English during his last 2 decades in Australia, he might have recognised the problem not in Dr Ali’s message but rather in his choice of words.

The rest of Dr Ali’s comments are nothing new, especially those relating to the process of renewing the understanding of Islamic sources. Similar thoughts have been expressed by the likes of prominent Swiss scholar Dr Tariq Ramadan and the American sharia academic lawyer Professor Khaled Abou el-Fadl.

Yet The Oz’s editorial on 5 October continues with manufacturing Mt Everest from a speck of dust, describing Dr Ali’s remarks as evidencing

... great courage ...

... and applauding them for ...

... promoting honest discussion that is in the interests of Islam, its followers and the Australian community.

The editorial took swipes at both Sheik Hilaly and his arch-nemesis, Muslim Community Reference Group member Mustapha Kara-Ali. For once, these two find themselves on the same side of an argument.

The editorial further claims that ...

... Dr Ali's standing cannot be easily dismissed.

How so? He has a doctorate in economics and teaches at a university. An economist claiming expertise on Islam’s most argued esoteric theological controversy. About as nutty as suggesting Sheik Hilaly be appointed to the Reserve Bank Board.

Speaking of Sheik Hilaly, Dick Kerbaj wrote on October 5 about Hilaly’s response to Ali’s remarks. Kerbaj described the Sheik as ...

... the head of Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's southwest.

Had Kerbaj done his research, he would have found out that there is no such a place as “Lakemba Mosque”. The Sydney suburb of Lakemba is home to at least 5 mosques, the largest of which is the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque. Further, the head of that mosque (where Sheik Hilaly is senior imam) is in fact the President of the Lebanese Moslems Association which owns and manages the mosque and the property on which it is built.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

Miranda promoting al-Qaida on Pope?

In her most recent column for the Sydney Morning Herald, Miranda Devine falls into the trap of interpreting the Pope’s innocent 7 page speech in the same manner as al-Qaida wackos and other miscellaneous and allegedly-halal riff-raff.

She claims

“the Islamic world [is] still throwing a tantrum over Pope Benedict's speech to a German university last week”.

Which Islamic world? I sure hope she isn’t verballing me.

Some days back, the Daily Telegraph featured an article with accompanying photo of Muslims protesting in Basra, Iraq ’s second largest city. Last time I checked, Basra had a population of over 3 million. And how many showed up to the rally?

Around 150.

She then claims Tony Abbott’s speech to a Lidcombe function organised by the Parramatta Catholic Diocese was part of a trend

“to question whether excessive politeness or political correctness stands in the way of effective dialogue between Islam and the West and may, in fact, hinder efforts to combat potential home-grown Islamic terrorism.”

I was at the function. I took detailed notes. Tony never linked criticism of Islam to security.

Miranda criticises Keysar Trad for wanting Cardinal Clancy to be the next Pope, without telling readers the good Cardinal acknowledged the Church had only recently come to terms with 2,000 years of often violent persecution of European Jews.

Devine then cites “Arabic scholar Paul Stenhouse” printed in Quadrant. Her quotes include the ridiculous claim that

“Osama bin Laden lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri reportedly adopted the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Miranda, the MB was founded in Egypt in 1928 by a chap who was assassinated in 1949. Zawahiri was born 2 years later.

Finally, Miranda adopts al-Qaida’s wacky interpretation of the Pope’s speech. Not even Cardinal Pell made this error. She quotes George Freidman (“founder of the Stratfor newsletter”) who claims the Pope wasn’t addressing students and staff at his old university but rather was sending a “warning to Europe 's Muslims about the limits of tolerance”.

How did Miranda reach these conclusions? Has she actually read the Pope’s speech? Or has she just muddled a few bits together to meet the Herald’s deadline?

Miranda, the Pope has apologised. Personally I don’t think he needed to. But as my Indian Muslim mum keeps telling me: “Saying sorry never harms anyone”. End of story.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Luke McIlveen - Making it up as you go?

There are a number of ways you can engage in sensationalist tabloid journalism. For instance, you can add your own prejudicial context to words otherwise quoted out of context. Then you can just make it up as you go.

What methodology does Daily Telegraph journalist Luke MvIlveen use? Who knows.

In today’s DT, McIlveen manages to find a non-Lebanese Australian mum with 2 seriously disabled children who has been waiting two years for “priority” public housing. The point being?

McIlveen contrasts the situation of this unfortunate woman to what he describes as

Lebanese Australians evacuated from the Middle East came home
to a welfare smorgasbord.

McIlveen repeats his claims in today’s story.

The Daily Telegraph yesterday exclusively revealed details
of a taxpayer-funded seminar at Rockdale, where senior bureaucrats told Lebanese
Australians how to maximise their welfare payments.

In fact, according to a senior member of the Australian Lebanese community who I spoke with, the seminar was NOT for Lebanese Australians in general. Rather, it was a networking program for government departments and welfare workers funded under government grants. It was not an open invitation for Lebanese community members in general.

Further, the three women photographed and described in yesterday’s article as ordinary members of the Lebanese community were in fact THREE WELFARE WORKERS. One was from the Melkite Church welfare agency, the remaining two from Shia Muslim organisations. All are employed pursuant to heavily regulated government grants.

But will McIlveen and his paper tell the truth about what the event was really about? I won’t be holding my breath.

And it isn’t just one rogue reporter in on the game. Today’s DT Editorial continues with the apparent lie. It claims that this networking seminar among workers was in fact something different.

Earlier this week, a NSW Government-sponsored "forum'' spelled out to a
group of around 60 Australians rescued from Lebanon the welfare benefits -
public housing, Centrelink, welfare support services and so on - to which
they might be entitled.

Even intelligent and respectable broadsheets can get things wrong. The DT owes it to its readers to clarify and tell the truth.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

RACISM: McIlveen strikes at Lebanese Aussies again

Daily Telegraph reporter Luke McIlveen continues with his monocultural agenda, this time complaining about an alleged scheme to enable Lebanese Australians rescued from war-torn Lebanon to ...

... get priority access to our welfare scheme.

The wording in the first paragraph is quite clear. The forum was designed to cater for Lebanese Australians to gain access to “our welfare scheme”.

Our scheme. Not their scheme. They are Lebanese Australians. We are real Australians. The message and implication is quite clear. The Telegraph is busy continuing with an agenda of demonising Lebanese Australians evacuated from what was the warzone.

The forum included advice on how to get ...

... to the top of the public housing queue.

Wow. How terrible. The sort of advice you could get by visiting your State MP’s office.

And what was the biggest deal about all this? The 3rd paragraph of the article states:

The extent of the support disproves claims from community leaders including Keysar Trad that Australia's response to the Middle East crisis was "racist".

Of course, had Keysar made the same allegations against McIlveen and the editors at the Telegraph, his allegations would have had some substance.

What the Telegraph doesn’t say is that the forum didn’t tell Lebanese Australians how to rort the system, though this is no doubt the impression McIlveen wishes to leave readers.

And they certainly did get that impression of the published feedback is anything to go by.

Once again, McIlveen has managed to engage in thinly disguised racism toward non-Anglo Australians. This time, his hysteria has also resulted in highly defamatory imputations against the Premier and staff of State and Federal Government Departments and Agencies.

The story includes a photo of 3 women at a table of brochures and pamphlets. As expected, 2 of them are wearing hijabs. The photo caption reads:

Generous support ... members of the Lebanese community check their entitlements last night.

Can someone please tell someone at the DT that most Lebanese Aussies are in fact Christians?

I often wonder whether the Telegraph get legal advice before they published their articles. One day they might find themselves in a spot of bother.

It would be interesting to know what Lebanese Aussie reporters employed by the DT think of this hysteria-mongering. The last time Piers Akerman wrote his nonsensical attack on Lebanese-Australian dual citizens and their pleas for evacuation, Lillian Saleh responded with a thinly-veiled critique of Akerman’s position.

(I say it was thinly veiled because she didn’t mention Akerman by name.)

It will be interesting to see if Saleh or one of her colleagues responds to what appears to be McIlveen’s latest racially-motivated monstrosity.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

Akerman, Sultan, Blokes & Potatoes

Before I commence this column I’d like to issue a warning to readers with even rudimentary knowledge of Arabic, Lebanese and/or Islamic cultures. The following few paragraphs could lead your sides to split.

Piers Akerman’s column in the Daily Telegraph on September 3 2006 contained the following reference to Syrian-born psychiatrist Dr Wafa Sultan:

Dr Sultan, a Syrian psychologist now living in the US, earned the wrath of
Islamicists for stating on al-Jazeera that Muslims began the clash of
civilisations.

“The Prophet of Islam said he was ordered to fight the
people until they believed in Allah and His messenger’,’’ he said.

Yes, Mr Akerman believes that Dr Sultan is, in fact, a man.

I searched in vain using a range of search engines. At no place could I find any evidence that Wafa Sultan was a man. I understand that normally “Wafa” is a woman’s name in Arabic. However, there could be situations where the name is used by men, just as names like “Akhter” and “Ferhat” can be used for either sex.

No such luck. Wafa is definitely a girl’s name. And Wafa Sultan is definitely a female.

So there you have it. A senior and experienced columnist and Deputy Editor of a major Sydney newspaper does not even bother to do sufficient research to ensure he has the genders of people who quotes correctly identified.

Piers regularly comments on Lebanese, Arab and/or Muslim cultures and peoples. He has at least 2 journalists working for his paper of Lebanese and/or Arabic-speaking background.

Further, his colleague Dr Janet Albrechtsen wrote about Wafa Sultan in one of her recent columns. Dr Albrechtsen seemed quite confident in her knowledge that Dr Sultan is not a bloke.

Yet he still makes such fundamental and embarrassing mistakes. He quotes from a female writer and then calls her a man.

Now, of course, it might be a simple mistake. Perhaps a typo. Just like the typo Piers made when he suggested Muslims worship potatoes.

Well done, Piers.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Telegraphic blackmail on Muslim free speech?

Daily Telegraph writer Luke McIlveen, in conjunction with his editors, seems to be again manufacturing stories attempting to widen the gap between the PM and whichever minority group it considers is worthy of a hatchet job.

This time McIlveen has generated hysteria in an article concerning the PM’s comments on minority Muslims who refuse to integrate.

McIlveen has deliberately sought to paint the PM as a reactionary racist, turning his somewhat tame comments into a serious attempt to attack all Muslims.

At one point in his article, McIlveen accuses the PM of having an agenda to deliberately marginalise Australia’s 300,000 Australians who just happen to be Muslim.

…Mr Howard … warned those who are unwilling to fit in would be further
marginalised.

Yet nowhere in Mr Howard’s comments could such a warning be found. McIlveen has twisted the PM’s words to generate reactionary intentions no Australian PM could reasonably hold.

McIlveen then accuses the PM of engaging in

… debate on whether Muslims should learn English and treat women as equals
…

It is only later in the article that McIlveen reluctantly concedes that the PM said

… some Muslims were not doing enough to learn English or adhere to
Australian customs of equality for women and a "fair go'' for all. (emphasis
mine)

McIlveen doesn’t stop at twisting and manipulating the words of the PM. He also manufactures a claim of …

Islamic leaders … trying to gag Prime Minister John Howard from speaking out
against Muslims who refuse to integrate, threatening that any criticism of their
culture could lead to another race riot.

And his evidence for this almost unbelievable slur? The following comment by the PM’s own handpicked Muslim Reference Group chair Dr Ameer Ali:

We have already witnessed one incident in Sydney, in Cronulla. I don't want
these scenes to be repeated, because when you antagonise the younger generation they are bound to react.

In what sense do such comments represent an attempt to gag the PM? Has Dr Ali pointed a gun at the PM’s head? Have Reference Group members threatened to strap bombs to their stomachs, storm Kirribilli and hold Janette Howard hostage should the PM not meet their demands.

Or has Dr Ali made a secret deal with Rupert Murdoch to ensure that the PM receives no coverage in News Limited papers from now on?

The story includes a photo of Mr Howard standing next to Dr Ali, an economist from Western Australia. The caption below the photo describes Dr Ali as the person

… who issued the Cronulla warning yesterday.

Other references to Dr Ali include claims that he

… tried to shut down debate on whether Muslims should learn English and
treat women as equals …

… and that Mr Ali made …

… inflammatory remarks …

The entire tone of the article was set by the headline which read

Muslim free speech blackmail

The tone of the article suggested that Muslims were attempting to blackmail the PM, threatening to spread hatred among young Muslims that could lead to more Cronulla-style riots. Certainly for anyone not reading beyond the headline, the photo caption and the first few sentences, this is the conclusion many would reach.

The DT’s editorial continued with its attack on Dr Ali’s “intemperate suggestion” that

... the Prime Minister's commentary could spark a new outbreak of violence
such as that seen at Cronulla last year.

My own personal opinion on the subject is that Dr Ali’s choice of words was very poor. However, the DT’s editorial claims that Dr Ali was in effect rejecting the notion that migrants should learn English and treat women as equals.

It goes further to reinforce stereotypes of Muslim women as oppressed.

Then we get to the issue of equality for women. Again, why single out
Muslims? The question is naive, and deliberately so.

The regrettable reality is that for many women, Islam is misused as a justification
for keeping them in subjugation, for limiting their educational opportunities,
their social contact, their right to work and so on.

The regrettable reality is that women of all ethnic and religious backgrounds keep women in subjugation. Were this not the case in Australia, why would we need State and Federal laws prohibiting and punishing discrimination on the basis of gender and pregnancy?

Australia has a serious problem with domestic violence. In NSW, figures published by the Bureau of Crime Statistics in November last year showed that in the past 7 years reported incidents of domestic violence had increased by over 50%.

That’s just the reported figures. Who knows how many women were too afraid to report?

Female victims of physical and sexual violence are from all ethnic and religious backgrounds, as are the perpetrators of such violence. Singling out Muslim women as being subjugated effectively demeans the experiences of non-Muslim women (including, no doubt, women employed by News Limited) who might have experienced discrimination or harassment, whether inside our outside the workplace.

Still, to be fair, the DT isn’t always so focussed on hysteria. I have little doubt they will also provide space for a reasonable exchange of views on the issues raised in the Prime Minister’s comparatively measured words.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

COMMENT: Richard Kerbaj, Wahhabism & The Taliban

Richard Kerbaj regularly writes for The Oz on issues relating to local Muslim groups. He claims fluency in Arabic and has a Middle Wastern background (I think his family is from Lebanon, but I stand to be corrected).

Unlike some reporters, Kerbaj has made every effort to be accessible to ordinary Muslim community members as well as self-appointed leaders. The last time I did that was in a professional capacity working as a lawyer with two offices (including one in Auburn). It almost drove me nuts!

In the 31 August edition of The Oz, Kerbaj writes about a Muslim leaders’ conference to be held in September. The headline of the article is “Radical clerics to be brought in from the cold.”

Kerbaj is not responsible for the headline. Decisions about headlines are made much higher up in the chain, and tend to reflect the bias or slant of the newspaper. Unfortunately, it is the headline which sets the tone for the entire article in the minds of most readers.

My problem with Kerbaj’s article is with his information on a phenomenon he describes as Wahhabism. Before I start talking about this, I should lay my cards on the table.

I am an implacable opponent of Wahhabi/Salafi theology. I regard it as a fringe theology which rarely complies with mainstream orthodox Sunni or Shia Islam. I regard Wahhabism has being on the very fringes of Islam, and particularly object to:

a. It’s opposition to Islamic spirituality (known to Sunnis as tasawwuf and to Shias as irfan);

b. It’s rejection of the following of 4 schools of law by Sunni Muslims;

c. It’s tendency to regard Shias as non-Muslims.

Of course, these tendencies are characteristic of most Wahhabism that I have been exposed to. Like many Muslims brought up in Australia, my knowledge of Wahhabism is gained from reading books published in Saudi Arabia.

I also understand that there are many Wahhabis who do not agree with the Saudi formulation of Wahhabi doctrine. Just as with Sunni and Shia Muslims, Wahhabis represent a broad spectrum, and cannot be typecast.

Which makes Kerbaj’s formulation of Wahhabism disturbing. The published version of Kerbaj’s article states:

… Wahhabism, a fundamentalist teaching of Islam that is preached by Osama bin Ladin and inspired the fanatical Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

According to Kerbaj’s formulation:

1) Wahhabism is a single kind of teaching.

2) Wahhabism is one of numerous “fundamentalist” teachings.

3) Wahhabism is preached (perhaps exclusively, if not mainly) by Osama bin Ladin.

4) Wahhabism inspired the Taliban regime.

I don’t wish to comment at this stage on the first three suggestions. I’d like to speak with Richard and find out what his source is for this information. Which books has he read? Which experts has he consulted? Which websites does he rely upon?

Anyone who believes that Wahhabism is one monolithic teaching should visit the website of the Canadian based wahhabi TROID where one can find numerous attacks by this Wahhabist group on other Wahhabis.

What surprises and amuses me most is the claim that Wahhabism inspired the Taliban regime. The most reliable information on the subject suggests that the Taliban were a mish-mash militia funded by Pakistani and Saudi interests. However, the dominant theological strain of the Taliban was not Wahhabi but Deobandi.

The Deobandi school is named after Darul Uloom Deoband, the most prominent Islamic institution in India. Yet one in four Muslims is from the Indian sub-Continent, and Indian Islam has its own unique theological spectrum. Indian Muslims are mainly Sunni. Indian Islam, like Hinduism, is a deeply mystical affair. Sufi spirituality plays a large role in the two main Indian Sunni schools – the Deobandi and Barelwi. The anti-Sufi Ahl-i-Hadis (India’s answer to Saudi-style Wahhabism) has few followers

Not Pakistan. Not Saudi Arabia. Not even Afghanistan. India. A nation where Muslims make up hardly 15% of the population.

The Deobandi school/sect is by no means Wahhabi. Indeed, prominent Deobandi authors and scholars have written detailed refutations of Wahhabi doctrine.

It would take a substantial amount of space to explain what the Deobandi strand of Islam teaches. Suffice it to say that it is a uniquely sub-Continental strand and is often in conflict with a competing Barelwi strand of Indian Islam.

To understand the Deobandi/Barelwi dispute, one must understand something of the unique nature, history and Sufi terrain of North Indian Islam. Perhaps the best Western source on this is Professor Barbara Metcalf.

The conservative Deobandi sect was founded in the north Indian village of Deoband during the late 19th century. Despite its orthodox, Deobandism played a pioneering role in educating Indian Muslim women in theology frequently regarded as the sole domain of men.

Deobandism competes with the Barelwi sect founded during the same period by Indian Sufi Syed Ahmad Raza Khan who hailed from a nearby town called Bareilly (from whose name the sect’s label is derived). is derived the school’s popular label of “Barelwi”.

Khan criticised Deobandi scholars for what their alleged lack of respect for the status of the Prophet Muhammad and their claims that certain cultural practises of Indian Muslims represented unnecessary and deviant innovations in orthodox liturgy. The gulf between the two was further widened due to various political differences.

Differences between Deobandi and Barelwi Muslims represent a sectarian divide unique to Indian communities and virtually non-existent in other Muslim communities, including among our own South East Asian neighbours.

Political differences between the two schools are numerous. During the movement for Indian independence most Deobandis worked with Gandhi and opposed Pakistan’s creation. Barelwis tended to support Pakistan.

I’ve provided an imperfect summary which hopefully provides some understanding of Deobandi Islam. If this is what the Taliban stood for, it is a far cry from the alleged Wahhabism attributed to them by Kerbaj and his sources.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006


Bookmark this on Delicious

Tabloids helping terror?

Once again, the Daily Telegraph has been busy spreading hysteria about “Islamic terrorists”.

Under the blaring headline of “SYDNEY WILL BE ATTACKED” (28 August 2006), Luke McIlveen boasts about how

MOST Australians believe we are losing the war against Islamic terrorists
and an attack on our home soil, most likely Sydney, is inevitable.

So who are this majority of Australians? What have they been asked? And what were their responses?

It turns out that the DT interviewed … wait for it … 572 people. 572, out of 18 million. You don't need a PhD in demography to know that isn't the most statistically significant sample on the planet. The interviews were said to be carried out

… in Sydney, Newcastle, country NSW and the ACT in the past week …

But hang on. The DT said their results were evidence of the beliefs of most Australians?

I don't like to speculate, but apparently quite a few Australians live in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and even ... SHOCK! HORROR!! ... Melbourne.

McIlveen (or, presuming he’s been heavily and unfairly edited, his editor) has blown a legitimate study about security concerns out of all proportion and turned it into a free-for-all on Muslims.

He even goes to the extent of claiming poll result

… raises concerns about the behaviour of Muslims in Australia.

He then quotes from a 62-year-old Newcastle woman who repeats the well-worn mantra of hate

Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.

I’d love to see Mr McIlveen put these suggestions to the Turkish consulate in Sydney. They might remind him that the last terrorist attack in Australia was the 1986 attack on the Turkish Consulate. Then there was the 1980 assassination of the Turkish Consul-General. They might also remind McIlveen that Turkey has just suffered a string of terrorist attacks, responsibility for which has been claimed by Kurdish Marxist groups.

Or perhaps McIlveen could stroll down to the Sri Lankan High Commission and ask someone there what religion the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam follow. He might also wish to read his colleague Anita Quigley’s column in the DT discussing the upcoming tour of American terrorism expert Robert Pape.

The only poll questions which suggested anything positive about Islam or Muslims was this one:

“Do you believe Australian Muslims are moderate?”

Er, aren’t there other ways you could describe Muslims? Is the only contribution Muslims can make to national security that they remain “moderate”? And is terrorism only a Muslim or Islamic phenomenon?

The DT answers this question very clearly. The final 3 questions speak of “Islamic terrorists”.

McIlveen’s hysteria took up an entire 17 paragraphs, plus graphics. A somewhat less negative piece by Evelyn Yamine was given a much smaller amount of space.

Muslim organisations, leaders and activists are run off their feet trying to inform people about their faith and culture. They are organising interfaith meetings, liaising with Federal Police and other law enforcement officials, reporting suspicious activities, writing articles, networking, speaking, organising and much much more.

Notwithstanding such efforts, some journalists and papers continue to play on people’s legitimate fears. No doubt, there is a genuine fear in the broader community about security and terrorism. And these fears are worth reporting.

However, in my opinion the DT’s poll as reported on 28 August 2006 is a classical example of “push polling”, asking loaded questions with underlying assumptions playing upon popularly held misconceptions, if not prejudice and bigotry. It seems they are seeking to combine legitimate fear with illegitimate prejudice.

It's arguable the poll spends less time seeking opinions and more time reinforcing hysteria and hatred toward an entire set of communities whose only common factor is their religious heritage.

By furthering the process of marginalising and demonising nominal Muslims, articles like McIlveen's are effectively helping the cause of al-Qaida. Terrorists want Muslims to feel marginalised, to feel like second class citizens in their own country. McIlveen may well be helping terrorists achieve their strategic goals.

The DT has every right to criticise aspects of Muslim cultures and beliefs they find distasteful. Yes, it's true - often Muslims are the ones who need a good kick up the backside. But the DT and other papers should keep in mind that sometimes their critiques will be seen as attempts to manufacture hatred against ordinary Aussie Muslims. If they want to support al-Qaida, they can keep manufacturing hatred against ordinary Aussie Muslims. If they want al-Qaida to fail, the DT can report and critique without the hysteria and prejudice.

Still, to be fair to the paper, Roger Coombs (who is one of the most senior editors at the paper) has written an excellent critique of the thick-Sheiks who make Aussies of all faiths look like fools in their response to the Muslim beauty queen aspirants. Anita Quigley gives Professor Robert Pape a fair hearing. She's also written a piece on converts which (in my opinion) is a genuine attempt to understand the troubled communal and cultural terrain they must pass through.

In fact, to be fair to McIlveen, his treatment of Jack Thomas was much fairer than many of his colleagues at The Oz.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Frank Devine, 1.2 billion people and one word

Frank Devine is a senior columnist at The Australian. In a profile of his daughter, Miranda Devine, The Bulletin once described him as a "conservative Catholic". Devine’s views on certain issues are similar to those of his daughter.

In 2004, he praised genocide-denier and ex-Marxist Keith Windschuttle’s book praising what was (and thankfully no longer is) Australia’s racist White Australia Policy.

Devine now attempts to justify using a term championed by Islamophobes to link the acts of homicidal terrorists to Islamic theology. His column in The Australian, entitled Let's not be shy as the Islamo-fascists certainly aren’t, supports George W Bush’s description of “Islamic fascists”, though preferring the even more offensive terminology (“Islamo-fascist”) of far-right fruitcakes like Mark Steyn and Daniel Pipes.

Given his conservative Catholic leanings, one might expect Devine to have greater tolerance for a faith which suffers similar demonising in the mainstream press as his. No such luck. Devine’s attitudes toward Islam display near-chronic ignorance.

Thankfully, most Catholics don’t share Devine’s views. Devinde’s lack of sophistication can be illustrated by his lumping together a whole range of disparate interests (from the Deobandi Taliban to the Wahhabist al-Qaida to the Shia Hezbollah) as

... our Islamic foes.

Gee, that really tells us a lot, doesn’t it. The intellectual senility continues with Devine remarking:

Islamo-fascist groups or of their common purpose - to damage and, ideally,
destroy Western society - and their identical murderous tactics.

Yes, of course anyone who supports Hezbollah must be anti-Western. Try telling that to supporters of Michel Aoun with a straight face.

And who is Devine’s magical authority for his claim? First, it is widely used Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Yes, I'm sure most serious scholars of religion go straight to that source when wanting to understand the complex theological and political nuances of a faith followed by 1.2 billion people.

His next source? American historian Paul Berman. Now presuming this is the same Berman I know, I’ll admit that he isn’t exactly on the far-Right. He regularly writes for the American small-‘l’ liberal Slate magazine.

However, I’m not sure if Berman would agree with the lazy manner in which Devine applies part of one sentence from an unnamed book or article or Berman’s to conclude any Middle Eastern movement calling itself “Islamic” is necessarily linked to European fascism.

Of course, Devine is no expert in the field. Daniel Benjamin of the Centre for Strategic & International Studies is such an expert. BBC quotes him as stating:

There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was
developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term. "This is
an epithet, a way of arousing strong emotion and tarnishing one's opponent, but
it doesn't tell us anything about the content of their beliefs.

The people who are trying to kill us, Sunni jihadist terrorists,
are a very, very different breed.

It may be hard for Devine to accept, but some phenomena cannot be summed up in a term that is

… catchier: it's only one word, is easier to say and holds promise of
developing the acronym IF (pronounced eye eff).

Devine isn’t concerned with the fact that Islam happens to be the faith of the vast majority of victims of terrorist attacks. He also isn’t concerned that Islam is the surname of a British victim of the July 7 2005 attacks in London. As far as he is concerned, attributing terroristic tendencies to the faith of the majority of its victims is perfectly acceptable.

Without meaning to sound ageist, Devine isn’t exactly growing younger. Then again, who is? I've certainly increased my quota of grey hairs since the photo in the top right hand corner of this page was taken in 2001.

Still, I can confidently say that Devine's views are part of the edifice of yesterday’s Australia, an Australia which took pride in hating anyone deemed different. The White Australia Policy has been relegated to the intellectual dustbin of Australia. It’s only a matter of time before views such as those of Devine are treated in a similar fashion.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Gerard Henderson & Lebs

What on earth does Gerard Henderson have against Lebs?

His most recent piece for the Sydney Morning Herald, an assault on anti-Israel protesters who allegedly hijacked a Sydney Hiroshima protest, contained the usual defence of hawkishly pro-Israel positions that even Israelis themselves are beginning to doubt.

Fair enough. Henderson supports Israel. Many Australians are sympathetic to Israel and hostile to Lebanon and/or Hezbollah in the current conflict. And yes, it is hypocritical for some protesters to mourn for Lebanese but not for Israelis. And I can’t say people like the Mufti Mel Hilaly (or should that be Tajeddine Gibson?) and his interpreter are my favourite Aussie Mossies.

But for Henderson to claim that an entire migrant wave came to Australia on the basis of false pretences is little more than an attempt to sound sophisticated whilst jumping on the same bandwagon Waleed Aly so deftly demolished last Sunday.

Henderson writes: “Many of the Lebanese Muslim Australians … were given refugee status during the civil war in Lebanon in the late 1970s and early 1980s, despite the fact they did not meet the requirements for obtaining refugee status.”

And the relevance of his point to the protest march and the current conflict in the Middle East is? Who knows? Indeed, who cares?

Is Henderson claiming that Lebanese Muslims engaged in migration fraud? Is he suggesting the Australian embassy in Damascus was party to this fraud? Is he suggesting Malcolm Fraser and his immigration minister were subverting due processes to favour Lebanese Sunni and/or Shia Muslims?

I’d love to see Henderson make this pitch to Ahmed Fahour should the Institute need NAB sponsorship.

I’d also love to see Gerard argue this point with Anne Henderson, who seems to have excellent rapport with Lebanese Aussies of all backgrounds.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

RACISM: Murdoch moments

A fortnight ago, Piers Akerman complained about a ...

... new class of dual nationality super-snivellers who believe mere possession of an Australian passport guarantees them security in their “other” homeland.

But by Friday morning, Akerman was shedding what might be described as crocodile tears for Assaf Namer, the young Israeli-Australian dual-citizen who died in Souyth Lebanon whilst serving in the Israeli army.

Akerman’s views on citizenship (indeed on many other) issues aren’t exactly rational and consistent. One wonders whether Akerman’s distaste for dual citizenship would be further tempered should Mr Murdoch find economic incentive to re-apply for Australian citizenship.

Some weeks back, Mr Murdoch told Channel 9:

You have to be careful about Muslims who have a very strong, in many ways a fine, but very strong religion which supercedes any sense of nationalism wherever they go.

We’ve all heard theories of how Murdoch’s personal views are allegedly parroted by his columnists. I thought I’d test this theory. I wrote to Akerman (who, I understand, is still Deputy Editor of the Daily Telegraph) in relation to an article I was researching for New Matilda.

Three of my questions are reproduced in bold. Akerman’s answers are in non-bolded italics.

Do you think Mr Murdoch is questioning the loyalties of all Muslim Aussies? I think his remarks are legitimate.

Do you support his sentiments? Yes.

Do you think this expression is indicative of an official News Limited editorial policy when it comes to Muslim issues? No.

So I guess Akerman’s citizenship formula goes something like this …

a) If you’re a Muslim citizen (dual or otherwise), you’re unwelcome.
b) If you’re a Lebanese dual citizen, you’re unwelcome.
c) If you are an Israeli dual citizen who fights in the Israeli army, you are welcome.
d) If you are a dual citizen who doesn’t fit into a), b) or c), watch this space.

Perhaps Akerman should make his suggestions to the Deputy Secretary for DIMA responsible for policy development and implementation in the areas of migration and temporary entry, refugees, settlement, citizenship and multicultural affairs. Then again, in the eyes of Akerman and Murdoch, Mr Rizvi probably has dual loyalties.

Akerman’s Melbourne colleague, Andrew Bolt, remains unrepentant over his comments on dual citizenship. It seems not even the death of an Israeli-Australian is enough to convince Bolt that dual citizens are real Aussies.

********************************

In Sunday night, I visited a friend for our regular Sunday night movie on FoxTel. While waiting for the 10:30pm edition of some movie about a 40 year old virgin, we decided to cross to Fox & Friends (F&F) for some live entertainment.

What we saw was far from entertaining. A Fox News reporter was being filmed live at the scene in the southern Lebanese village of Qana. He was standing near the bombed-out building whose basement entombed some 57 civilian dead, including at least 30 children.

Both the reporter and F&F hosts were speculating how women and children could have ended up in that building given that Israel’s defence forces had very kindly dropped leaflets on the area warning people to leave.

The hosts canvassed a number of theories with the reporter. One theory was that the Hezbollah fighters wouldn’t let them leave. A number of other theories were used, none of which suggested that maybe the women and children were too poor and/or too sick to leave. Nor was it mentioned that Red Cross officials found the burnt-out wrecks containing charred remains of civilians trying to flee the south before being bombed by Israeli jets.

After canvassing all possible theories, both hosts and reporter agreed that the most plausible explanation was that the children were in fact somehow directly linked to Hezbollah terrorism. How such link manifested itself wasn’t explained.

In other words, Rupert Murdoch’s news network was effectively justifying the incineration of children in southern Lebanon.

Later on in the show, a former Israeli Foreign Service chief was interviewed. An F&F hostess prompted the gentleman to suggest that an existing UN Resolution to disarm Hezbollah was futile and Israel should just go on with its bombing campaign.

When the Israeli gentleman tried to suggest that the UN Resolution was fine and just needed to be implemented, the hostess cut him off, saying they needed to go for a commercial break.

So there you have it. Even the most hawkish Israeli political positions aren’t hawkish enough for Fox, a news network that invents theories to justify the massacre of children.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

Tabloid Forum Fraud?

The Daily Telegraph reached new lows of divisive and gutter journalism in its Monday July 10 2006 issue.

The offending article appeared on page 7 of the DT and was headed “Extremists weave a suburban web of hate”. It was authored by Luke McIlveen.

The article claims “Muslim extremists in Sydney are using the internet to gather support for making Australia an Islamic state”. It also claims chat rooms reveal “a ground swell of support for notorious terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi”.

The article doesn’t actually define what it understands by the term “Islamic state”. Nor does it define “ground swell”.

When examined closely, the ground swell turns out to be little more than a small number of quotes or excerpts from postings made by anonymous contributors. The quotations were made out of context, with McIlveen’s over-active imagination used to prove the relevant sinister context.

McIlveen deliberately misleads his readers by claiming “several threads” were devoted to “turning Australia into an Islamic state.

Yet the only quote he provides is one person posting: “II reckon we stay and try our best to get to high positions in this country so it comes to the fold of Islam”.

“McIlveen doesn’t explain how coming “to the fold of Islam” necessarily means the establishment of a caliphate or some other form of theocratic Islamic state.

Other quotes from postings are provided, though little indication is given of the precise subject matter of the posts or of other opinions expressed on the same thread.

At the article’s end, McIlveen invites readers to report any extremist websites with the question: “Do know of any extremist websites?”.

It seems professional journalism isn’t the only thing McIlveen has trouble with.

I did speak to Mr McIlveen on the afternoon of 11 July 2006. He insisted that the quotes did suggest their authors did envisage establishing an Islamic state. He asked what other possible reading could be given to them. I suggested there could be numerous possible readings, amongst which is that the posters wanted Islam to become the majority religion without changing the political system.

I followed up the telephone conversation with an e-mail to Mr McIlveen. I requested he send me a copy of all threads he had retained in researching the story, especially given that he had envisaged moderators of the forums might edit or remove the threads and then accuse McIlveen of misrepresentation. I'll keep you all informed of any response I receive from Mr McIlveen and/or the DT.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006