Showing posts with label muslims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label muslims. Show all posts
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
My friendly neighbourhood
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Aceh is a cautionary example for Indonesia
Since the end of the three decades under military strongman Suharto, Indonesia has emerged as the most vibrant democracy in South East Asia. Yet this new freedom might prove costly to the character of a nation frequently held up as a beacon of moderate Islam. As we are seeing from the Arab Spring, some of the things that emerge after the fall of a dictator are not so nice. The absence of a tough-guy ruler in Indonesia has meant a rise in Saudi-funded Islamic fundamentalism and acts of terror, from bombings targeted at Westerners in Jakarta and Bali, to persecution of Shi'as and Ahmadis.
If Indonesians want a glimpse at a possible future of their nation, they need only peek over at Aceh, a province where Islam reigns supreme. The Acehnese have fought a long struggle for independence, against the Dutch and now against Indonesia, but their fight for self-determination might garner a little more sympathy if they didn't seem so keen to turn Aceh into SE Asia's capital of Islamic lunacy.
Unspun has it right. This has nothing to do with what women wear or do, but everything to do with the idea that men are incapable of controlling their basic urges. And when you set such a low standard for men to follow, it's not surprising when they lower themselves to it.
If Indonesians want a glimpse at a possible future of their nation, they need only peek over at Aceh, a province where Islam reigns supreme. The Acehnese have fought a long struggle for independence, against the Dutch and now against Indonesia, but their fight for self-determination might garner a little more sympathy if they didn't seem so keen to turn Aceh into SE Asia's capital of Islamic lunacy.
The administration of Lhokseumawe, Aceh, is planning to issue a bylaw banning women from straddling motorcycles, arguing that the practice is “improper” in a province governed by Islamic law. Lhokseumawe Mayor Suaidi Yahya said that women should sit sideways on motorcycles, with their legs dangling off to one side. The planned regulation had been discussed with many parties, including local ulema, Suaidi said in his 2013 New Year’s speech. The mayor said that the ban would restore fading local values caused by poor morality and make it easier to differentiate women from men when riding pillion. He said that the planned regulation could in fact uphold the dignity of women in the region.
Unspun has it right. This has nothing to do with what women wear or do, but everything to do with the idea that men are incapable of controlling their basic urges. And when you set such a low standard for men to follow, it's not surprising when they lower themselves to it.
Monday, 17 September 2012
A right and wrong way to comment on extremism
The demonstration-cum-riot of several hundred angry Muslims in Sydney has been one of the most discussed issues in Australia in the last couple of days. You can read my take on it here.
The rally has been condemned by Australia's mainstream Muslim organisations, who are generally smart enough to recognise that such behaviour perpetuates the very stereotypes they are trying to fight against.
But one paper was brave enough to report on what it saw as the most heinous behaviour of the day - that of the police. That paper is Green Left Weekly, which I used to read back when I was an Arts student, until I developed what grown-ups like to call perspective.
The completely non-ironic title kicks it off in a fabulous way:
Now I consider myself to be on the left side of the political spectrum, and thus it irks me to share my ideological patch with the sort of people who write these articles. To subscribe to their way of thinking, you need to believe that every bad situation is somehow caused by the State or the 1%, and never believe that members of a minority group could be in the wrong. It's ironic that a publication like Green Left Weekly, which rightly is a strong supporter of freedom of expression, women's rights and gay rights, is so happy to throw its lot in with a mob whose ideology is far more repressive and totalitarian than anything the 1% can dream up... just because that mob is part of a minority group.
This is not to say, of course, that the police definitely didn't use excessive force or tactics that were uncalled for. That may well have happened. But it's somewhat laughable for GLW to claim that "the police would be unlikely to have used this level of force against most other protests of 300 to 400 people", when every other story in every edition of GLW seems to be about how brutal and oppressive the cops are towards demonstrators.
A far better take on the situation was expressed in The Age by the Egyptian-Australian academic and broadcaster Waleed Aly, who again shows why he is probably the best spokesperson Australia's Muslim community has.
It's an extremely astute article and I'd encourage you to read the whole thing.
The rally has been condemned by Australia's mainstream Muslim organisations, who are generally smart enough to recognise that such behaviour perpetuates the very stereotypes they are trying to fight against.
But one paper was brave enough to report on what it saw as the most heinous behaviour of the day - that of the police. That paper is Green Left Weekly, which I used to read back when I was an Arts student, until I developed what grown-ups like to call perspective.
The completely non-ironic title kicks it off in a fabulous way:
Eyewitness account of police riot against peaceful Muslim protest in Australia
... I think that if the police had left the protesters alone they would have marched, chanted and prayed in peace... The police would be unlikely to have used this level of force against most other protests of 300 to 400 people. But Muslim protesters get different treatment. Muslims have been scapegoated and criminalised by state and federal governments and the mainstream media. Muslim communities are the target of intense racism and have been made fair game in this country. Now the protesters, not the police, are being blamed by politicians and the media of the 1% and even more fear and hate is being whipped up against the Muslim population. We should condemn the police who brutally provoked these protesters and squandered thousands of dollars in a massive show of police repression in the heart of Sydney.
Now I consider myself to be on the left side of the political spectrum, and thus it irks me to share my ideological patch with the sort of people who write these articles. To subscribe to their way of thinking, you need to believe that every bad situation is somehow caused by the State or the 1%, and never believe that members of a minority group could be in the wrong. It's ironic that a publication like Green Left Weekly, which rightly is a strong supporter of freedom of expression, women's rights and gay rights, is so happy to throw its lot in with a mob whose ideology is far more repressive and totalitarian than anything the 1% can dream up... just because that mob is part of a minority group.
This is not to say, of course, that the police definitely didn't use excessive force or tactics that were uncalled for. That may well have happened. But it's somewhat laughable for GLW to claim that "the police would be unlikely to have used this level of force against most other protests of 300 to 400 people", when every other story in every edition of GLW seems to be about how brutal and oppressive the cops are towards demonstrators.
A far better take on the situation was expressed in The Age by the Egyptian-Australian academic and broadcaster Waleed Aly, who again shows why he is probably the best spokesperson Australia's Muslim community has.
That the Obama administration immediately condemned the film in the strongest terms doesn't register. Nor that the White House took the extraordinary (and ultimately unsuccessful) step of asking Google to pull the video. This is invisible to an audience of humiliated souls waiting desperately to be offended and conflate every grievance. Indeed, they need the offence. It gives them the chance to assert themselves so they can feel whole, righteous even. It's a shortcut to self-worth.
The trouble is that in our digital world, there is always something to oblige. Anyone can Google their prejudices, and there is always enraging news to share with others. Entire online communities gather around the sharing of offensive material and subsequent communal venting. Soon you have a subculture: a sub-community whose very cohesion is based almost exclusively on shared grievance. Then you have an identity that has nothing to say about itself; an identity that holds an entirely impoverished position: that to be defiantly angry is to be.
Frankly, Muslims should find that prospect nothing short of catastrophic. It renders Islamic identity entirely hollow. All pride, all opposition, no substance. ''Like the Incredible Hulk,'' observes Abdal Hakim Murad, a prominent British Islamic scholar, ''ineffectual until provoked.''
It's an extremely astute article and I'd encourage you to read the whole thing.
Saturday, 15 September 2012
Congratulations. You just ruined multiculturalism for the rest of us.
In case you can't read the sign in this photo: it's a small child holding up a sign that reads, "Behead all those who insult the prophet." This was seen at the anti-American protest in Sydney yesterday. [Source]
This picture, combined with footage of 300 morons converging on Sydney's CBD yesterday to rant about the film that disrespects the prophet Muhammad, might be the confirmation to me that we need to have a serious rethink about the direction of multiculturalism in this country.
I like being in a diverse multi-ethnic society where a variety of cultures are allowed to be expressed. But the multicultural ideal only works when the cultures it contains share the same basic values. While the majority of Australian Muslims have integrated well and become "Australian", there are certain minority elements, particularly in Sydney, that maintain views that are simply anathema to the values that are fundamental to the society we want to be in 2012. It would be slightly more understandable if these 300 protesters had just arrived in Australia from somewhere less genteel, and we could say that they have not yet got accustomed to the Australian way of life. But most of those men were either born here or grew up here. When people can grow up in Australia and yet grow to adulthood with a mentality that is unrecognisable as Australian, then perhaps there is something wrong with the way our society indulges these idiots.
We should celebrate diverse cultures. No doubt. But somewhere along the line, some people have taken that to mean that it's okay to think like a barbarian.
I have no axe to grind with the majority of Australian Muslims who are by and large pretty good folks. I am the child of a Muslim, in fact. I have numerous friends who are of Muslim background, and I can say unreservedly that Australia is a better place for their presence.
But we need to do something to ensure we don't add to the minority of Muslims who are just f*cking idiots. There are plenty of non-Muslims in Australia who are also f*cking idiots of course, but for all their faults, they generally don't advocate murdering people who insult their religion.
You know what Christians in Australia do when someone insults Jesus? Pretty much nothing. Sometimes they might write a stern letter to a newspaper. When people can insult Muhammad as frequently as they insult Jesus, and nothing happens aside from an increased volume of letters to the editor, that's when I'll feel affirmed that everything is okay with multiculturalism.
I like being in a diverse multi-ethnic society where a variety of cultures are allowed to be expressed. But the multicultural ideal only works when the cultures it contains share the same basic values. While the majority of Australian Muslims have integrated well and become "Australian", there are certain minority elements, particularly in Sydney, that maintain views that are simply anathema to the values that are fundamental to the society we want to be in 2012. It would be slightly more understandable if these 300 protesters had just arrived in Australia from somewhere less genteel, and we could say that they have not yet got accustomed to the Australian way of life. But most of those men were either born here or grew up here. When people can grow up in Australia and yet grow to adulthood with a mentality that is unrecognisable as Australian, then perhaps there is something wrong with the way our society indulges these idiots.
We should celebrate diverse cultures. No doubt. But somewhere along the line, some people have taken that to mean that it's okay to think like a barbarian.
I have no axe to grind with the majority of Australian Muslims who are by and large pretty good folks. I am the child of a Muslim, in fact. I have numerous friends who are of Muslim background, and I can say unreservedly that Australia is a better place for their presence.
But we need to do something to ensure we don't add to the minority of Muslims who are just f*cking idiots. There are plenty of non-Muslims in Australia who are also f*cking idiots of course, but for all their faults, they generally don't advocate murdering people who insult their religion.
You know what Christians in Australia do when someone insults Jesus? Pretty much nothing. Sometimes they might write a stern letter to a newspaper. When people can insult Muhammad as frequently as they insult Jesus, and nothing happens aside from an increased volume of letters to the editor, that's when I'll feel affirmed that everything is okay with multiculturalism.
Sunday, 1 April 2012
More (cross-cultural) thoughts on "The Raid"
Just a couple of things I wanted to add to my previous review of Indonesian martial arts flick The Raid.
* Read the subtitles of this film, and it's not shy on swear words. There are plenty of f-words, and at least one c-word. But if you happen to speak Indonesian as well, you'll notice that there's no such thing actually spoken - I didn't make out any Indonesian words that were actually that dirty. Indonesian has swear words, of course, but you don't often see them in movies. A lot of the flavour of Bahasa Indonesia is in the tone and expressiveness of those whose speak it, rather than the words themselves, and so the English translation tries to capture those emotions in words, rather than letting the tone do the work.
So when a character says "Step back!" sternly to his subordinate, the subtitle reads "Step the fuck back!" and so on.
The rudest Indonesian words I noticed were bangsat (bastard), which was translated as the c-bomb by the subtitlers, and anjing (dog), which seemed to take on several different meanings, including "fuck you!"
* By contrast to a lot of the reviews going around which are hailing this as one of the greatest action movies of recent years, respected US critic Roger Ebert panned it and gave it one star in this review.
Now, opinions are opinions; I have a lot of respect for Ebert and can't complain if something is not to his taste. What did interest me though were a few lines in the review that puzzled me and seem to show a US-centric perspective on the world. That's interesting to me because so much of how we evaluate things is due to our upbringing, culture and vantage point. He says:
What country are we in? It's interesting that a reviewer would write such a thing, because consider this: do most American movies need to state that they take place in the USA? Sometimes they might state the city, but certainly not always. So why must a movie that is made in Indonesia, and in which the characters are clearly Indonesian and speak Indonesian, point out that it is taking place in Indonesia?
The Muslim thing is also odd. Given that 90% of Indonesians are Muslim, and it's widely known as the world's most populous Islamic-majority country, why wouldn't it show that the main character is a Muslim? Given that the opening sequence shows Rama, up before dawn, preparing himself for the gruelling day ahead, what is odd about seeing him praying? If anything, it just shows him as a spiritual man of good character, who as any religious person would, seeks divine strength for the risky business that awaits him.
That praying scene can be read in another way, though. While it shows the main protagonist as a devout Muslim, it is a minor detail overall. Yet in the current global climate, is writer-director making a statement by having Western audiences cheer for a Muslim hero? I'm reminded of the brilliant series The Wire, in which perhaps its most beloved character is Omar, a fearless stick-up guy who just happens to be gay. His sexuality is just a minor background detail, as you could argue Rama's religion is in The Raid, as if to remind us that people are so much more than whatever category they belong to.
* Read the subtitles of this film, and it's not shy on swear words. There are plenty of f-words, and at least one c-word. But if you happen to speak Indonesian as well, you'll notice that there's no such thing actually spoken - I didn't make out any Indonesian words that were actually that dirty. Indonesian has swear words, of course, but you don't often see them in movies. A lot of the flavour of Bahasa Indonesia is in the tone and expressiveness of those whose speak it, rather than the words themselves, and so the English translation tries to capture those emotions in words, rather than letting the tone do the work.
So when a character says "Step back!" sternly to his subordinate, the subtitle reads "Step the fuck back!" and so on.
The rudest Indonesian words I noticed were bangsat (bastard), which was translated as the c-bomb by the subtitlers, and anjing (dog), which seemed to take on several different meanings, including "fuck you!"
* By contrast to a lot of the reviews going around which are hailing this as one of the greatest action movies of recent years, respected US critic Roger Ebert panned it and gave it one star in this review.
Now, opinions are opinions; I have a lot of respect for Ebert and can't complain if something is not to his taste. What did interest me though were a few lines in the review that puzzled me and seem to show a US-centric perspective on the world. That's interesting to me because so much of how we evaluate things is due to our upbringing, culture and vantage point. He says:
"What country are we in? The movie never tells us. (It was filmed in Indonesia.) Establishing Rama as a Muslim seems pointless, except as a cheap fakeout in character development."
What country are we in? It's interesting that a reviewer would write such a thing, because consider this: do most American movies need to state that they take place in the USA? Sometimes they might state the city, but certainly not always. So why must a movie that is made in Indonesia, and in which the characters are clearly Indonesian and speak Indonesian, point out that it is taking place in Indonesia?
The Muslim thing is also odd. Given that 90% of Indonesians are Muslim, and it's widely known as the world's most populous Islamic-majority country, why wouldn't it show that the main character is a Muslim? Given that the opening sequence shows Rama, up before dawn, preparing himself for the gruelling day ahead, what is odd about seeing him praying? If anything, it just shows him as a spiritual man of good character, who as any religious person would, seeks divine strength for the risky business that awaits him.
That praying scene can be read in another way, though. While it shows the main protagonist as a devout Muslim, it is a minor detail overall. Yet in the current global climate, is writer-director making a statement by having Western audiences cheer for a Muslim hero? I'm reminded of the brilliant series The Wire, in which perhaps its most beloved character is Omar, a fearless stick-up guy who just happens to be gay. His sexuality is just a minor background detail, as you could argue Rama's religion is in The Raid, as if to remind us that people are so much more than whatever category they belong to.
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Media-led burqa hysteria?
Amusing take from the folks at ABC's The Hamster Wheel on the Australian media's sensationalising of the burqa issue.
But this clip and the content within it represent for me the nature of problematic discussion about Islam in Australia. The Hamster Wheel guys do a good job of showing some of the ignorance that drives the prejudice against Muslims in Australia, and how the media fuel so much of it. But they also hint at the usual idea pushed by the Left that those who worry about the influence of radical Islam in Australia are probably stupid or racist or both.
Our media has essentially created a dichotomy: you are either a Muslim-hating xenophobe, or you accept anything and everything that Muslims do and assume that it'll all be okay in the end. For me, I look forward to a happy medium in which Australians (including Muslim Australians) can accept that Muslims are welcome and valued members of our society, yet acknowledge that certain practices associated with Islamic culture have no place in Australia. Of course, no two people seem to agree on exactly where that happy medium lies, so I guess we are stuck with the polarisation.
See also:
How the media manufactures a racist "controversy"
Is it Islamophobic to ban the burqa?
But this clip and the content within it represent for me the nature of problematic discussion about Islam in Australia. The Hamster Wheel guys do a good job of showing some of the ignorance that drives the prejudice against Muslims in Australia, and how the media fuel so much of it. But they also hint at the usual idea pushed by the Left that those who worry about the influence of radical Islam in Australia are probably stupid or racist or both.
Our media has essentially created a dichotomy: you are either a Muslim-hating xenophobe, or you accept anything and everything that Muslims do and assume that it'll all be okay in the end. For me, I look forward to a happy medium in which Australians (including Muslim Australians) can accept that Muslims are welcome and valued members of our society, yet acknowledge that certain practices associated with Islamic culture have no place in Australia. Of course, no two people seem to agree on exactly where that happy medium lies, so I guess we are stuck with the polarisation.
See also:
How the media manufactures a racist "controversy"
Is it Islamophobic to ban the burqa?
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Malaysia’s behaviour lessons for non-Muslims during Ramadan
(Cross-posted at Brown Pundits)
A couple of race- and religion-related controversies in Malaysia this week.
8TV decided to axe a series of public service announcements after claims that they were racist against Chinese-Malaysians. The ad campaign was aimed at teaching non-Muslims how to behave respectfully during Ramadan, and portrays a young Chinese woman speaking in a loud and crass fashion at the market and eating in public. See for yourself:
(8TV is having a lot of these clips deleted from Youtube; try here if you can't see it.)
I wouldn't call this racist, but it is laughably pathetic nonetheless, particularly the bit when a shocked Malay man shields his daughter's eyes from seeing the woman's armpits (blurred for good measure). There are plenty of influential Malay voices in the media, government and religious spheres who love to play the victim card ad infinitum - cultivating the perception that the non-Malay, non-Muslim minorities are somehow trampling all over Malay rights and religious sensitivities.
Also this week on the topic of respectful behaviour:
The Football Association of Malaysia has apologised to Chelsea after the London club complained of anti-Semitic abuse in their tour match against a Malaysian XI recently, directed at Israeli winger Yossi Benayoun. Yet it is an apology that seems disingenuous in the face of the Malaysian State's attitudes towards Israel.
I've watched highlights of this game, and while I couldn't hear anything racial, Benayoun is audibly booed every time he touches the ball, something the other Chelsea players are not subjected to. Benayoun himself is a likeable footballer who is completely uncontroversial aside from being Israeli.)
“The FA of Malaysia would like to strongly register that we do not condone any form of racism in football,” the statement read. “If such an incident did happen we would like to apologise to the player concerned and also to Chelsea FC. From our initial observations, if such an incident took place, it would have involved a small section of spectators at the match. This surely does not reflect the feelings of the majority of fans in this football-loving country.”
Of course, Malaysians should probably reflect on a history of anti-Semitism in the country. Last time Chelsea toured Malaysia in 2008 there was talk that then coach Avram Grant and defender Tal Ben Haim would not be granted visas to enter the country. Former PM Mahathir Mohamad once claimed that the Jews ruled the world by proxy. And it was only a couple of weeks ago that government-backed newspaper Utusan Malaysia made the ludicrous claim that the recent rallies for democracy in KL may have been the work of Jews.
Since the two countries have very little to do with each other in practical terms, and most Malaysians will never actually meet a Jew, this feeling originates solely from the fact that Malays are Muslim and therefore lots of them just assume that disliking Jews is part of their religious duty.
A couple of race- and religion-related controversies in Malaysia this week.
8TV decided to axe a series of public service announcements after claims that they were racist against Chinese-Malaysians. The ad campaign was aimed at teaching non-Muslims how to behave respectfully during Ramadan, and portrays a young Chinese woman speaking in a loud and crass fashion at the market and eating in public. See for yourself:
(8TV is having a lot of these clips deleted from Youtube; try here if you can't see it.)
I wouldn't call this racist, but it is laughably pathetic nonetheless, particularly the bit when a shocked Malay man shields his daughter's eyes from seeing the woman's armpits (blurred for good measure). There are plenty of influential Malay voices in the media, government and religious spheres who love to play the victim card ad infinitum - cultivating the perception that the non-Malay, non-Muslim minorities are somehow trampling all over Malay rights and religious sensitivities.
Also this week on the topic of respectful behaviour:
The Football Association of Malaysia has apologised to Chelsea after the London club complained of anti-Semitic abuse in their tour match against a Malaysian XI recently, directed at Israeli winger Yossi Benayoun. Yet it is an apology that seems disingenuous in the face of the Malaysian State's attitudes towards Israel.
I've watched highlights of this game, and while I couldn't hear anything racial, Benayoun is audibly booed every time he touches the ball, something the other Chelsea players are not subjected to. Benayoun himself is a likeable footballer who is completely uncontroversial aside from being Israeli.)
“The FA of Malaysia would like to strongly register that we do not condone any form of racism in football,” the statement read. “If such an incident did happen we would like to apologise to the player concerned and also to Chelsea FC. From our initial observations, if such an incident took place, it would have involved a small section of spectators at the match. This surely does not reflect the feelings of the majority of fans in this football-loving country.”
Of course, Malaysians should probably reflect on a history of anti-Semitism in the country. Last time Chelsea toured Malaysia in 2008 there was talk that then coach Avram Grant and defender Tal Ben Haim would not be granted visas to enter the country. Former PM Mahathir Mohamad once claimed that the Jews ruled the world by proxy. And it was only a couple of weeks ago that government-backed newspaper Utusan Malaysia made the ludicrous claim that the recent rallies for democracy in KL may have been the work of Jews.
Since the two countries have very little to do with each other in practical terms, and most Malaysians will never actually meet a Jew, this feeling originates solely from the fact that Malays are Muslim and therefore lots of them just assume that disliking Jews is part of their religious duty.
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Why women are the cause of all the world’s problems – Malay edition
(Cross - posted at Brown Pundits)
There is Islamic misogyny, and non-Islamic misogyny, but the Islamic variety seems far better at convincing otherwise intelligent women to buy into this nonsense.
A Happy Man, A Happy Home
There is Islamic misogyny, and non-Islamic misogyny, but the Islamic variety seems far better at convincing otherwise intelligent women to buy into this nonsense.
A Happy Man, A Happy Home
“You just need to open the newspaper or watch the news on TV: there are so many sex-related social problems rape, incest, prostitution and sex trafficking.”
Men will not be committing these crimes if they are sexually satisfied at home, she [Fauziah Ariffin] stresses. “The key to make a man gentle and loving is a first-class loving wife an obedient wife. When the wife is obedient, the husband will be happy and gentle. They will not look elsewhere for the loving they need.”
And like simple economics, cutting off the “demand” for the illegal “sex” will cut the supply. “The authorities have come up with a lot of solutions and conducted various raids or operations to nip these social problems, but they still exist. The solution we are proposing is one that is guaranteed to work, as it is backed by the Quran,” she explains.
Committee member Siti Maznah Mohamed Taufik tries another argument to demonstrate how a sexually frustrated man can cause violence in society.
“Just yesterday, there was a story about a man who hit his wife with a lesung (pounding stone) because she refused to have lunch with him. Do you believe that? It does not make sense. Just because of lunch, a man would hit his wife until she is hospitalised? I’m sure it is because she did not give him any the night before. That’s why he was furious with her.”
I wonder if it occurs to them that perhaps the reason this wife didn’t want to have lunch or sex with her husband is because he is the type of asshole who likes to hit women with pounding stones.
There are plenty more facepalm moments in the full article. A common thread in these kinds of worldviews is their extremely low expectations of men, who apparently can’t stop themselves from raping en masse unless they get a regular diet of sex at home. So it’s heartening that a Facebook group that has sprung up to denounce the "Obedient Wives Club" was started by a Malaysian male, 22 year-old Matthew Tard Ong.
I personally don’t think this is a mainstream view among Malay women – this group appears to have some extremist associations. But how widespread is this? And is it a Muslim thing, a Malay thing, a Malaysian thing, or a human thing?
Saturday, 21 May 2011
Does Obama’s brownness have any impact on Islamic radicalism?
Question: Does having a brown man in the White House do anything to shift hardline Islamists' hatred towards America?
Check my post on this over at Brown Pundits.
Check my post on this over at Brown Pundits.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Bin Laden is dead. Why are some of you being grumpy?
They got him!
Now, I'm going to assume that the Yanks didn't just make this up for propaganda purposes, or shoot some beardy brown guy who looked vaguely like Bin Laden and decided that was good enough. Let's assume that it's actually happened.
Not sure how to react? Here's how. Be happy.
I know it's weird to be happy that someone died. But this is Osama Bin Laden. I know he doesn't have the same kind of body count as say, Hitler or Pol Pot, but make no mistake, he's cut from the same cloth. So be happy. This is a guy who was a figurehead for mass murder and terrorism, for whom civilians were mere expendable pawns, no matter whether they were Muslim or non-Muslim. He'd kill your mother without a second thought, so don't feel bad that he's dead.
And no, this doesn't mean that the threat of militant Islamism is over. And yes, they probably should have got him a bit sooner.
But he's dead and that's a good thing. I abhor violence as a rule, but a select few people have forfeited their privilege to be alive, and Osama was living on borrowed time. Be happy, he deserved it.
Yet...
I notice some of you are finding reasons to whinge about this.
Yes, certain radical lefties, I'm looking at you. Yes, certain Muslims, I'm looking at you.
I know that it's cool to be anti-establishment, and anti-American. And I can dig it, I was once like you, and still am in some ways.
But really, stop complaining, just for a moment. Yes, the death toll of the War on Terror is obscenely high. Yes, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has caused a mountain of unnecessary problems.
But at least for just a moment, allow yourself to be happy that amidst all the horrible things the world has seen in the last 10 years in the cause of the War on Terror, it ain't all bad. You don't have to run out into the streets and chant "USA! USA!" That might be a bit excessive. But the guy who's life's mission was to create an all-consuming world war between the Islamic world and the West just got got. That's cause for at least an approving nod of the head.
Tomorrow, you can go back to being mad about something and normal service can be resumed.
Now, I'm going to assume that the Yanks didn't just make this up for propaganda purposes, or shoot some beardy brown guy who looked vaguely like Bin Laden and decided that was good enough. Let's assume that it's actually happened.
Not sure how to react? Here's how. Be happy.
I know it's weird to be happy that someone died. But this is Osama Bin Laden. I know he doesn't have the same kind of body count as say, Hitler or Pol Pot, but make no mistake, he's cut from the same cloth. So be happy. This is a guy who was a figurehead for mass murder and terrorism, for whom civilians were mere expendable pawns, no matter whether they were Muslim or non-Muslim. He'd kill your mother without a second thought, so don't feel bad that he's dead.
And no, this doesn't mean that the threat of militant Islamism is over. And yes, they probably should have got him a bit sooner.
But he's dead and that's a good thing. I abhor violence as a rule, but a select few people have forfeited their privilege to be alive, and Osama was living on borrowed time. Be happy, he deserved it.
Yet...
I notice some of you are finding reasons to whinge about this.
Yes, certain radical lefties, I'm looking at you. Yes, certain Muslims, I'm looking at you.
I know that it's cool to be anti-establishment, and anti-American. And I can dig it, I was once like you, and still am in some ways.
But really, stop complaining, just for a moment. Yes, the death toll of the War on Terror is obscenely high. Yes, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has caused a mountain of unnecessary problems.
But at least for just a moment, allow yourself to be happy that amidst all the horrible things the world has seen in the last 10 years in the cause of the War on Terror, it ain't all bad. You don't have to run out into the streets and chant "USA! USA!" That might be a bit excessive. But the guy who's life's mission was to create an all-consuming world war between the Islamic world and the West just got got. That's cause for at least an approving nod of the head.
Tomorrow, you can go back to being mad about something and normal service can be resumed.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
The world's most average name
Here's a thought experiment.
Meet Muhammad Chen. He is the world's most average person.
Well, sort of. According to this post over at Abagond's blog, the world's most average person is a 28 year-old male who lives in Shenzhen in China and is a Roman Catholic. His name is a combination of the world's most common surname (Chen) and the world's most common given name (Muhammad).
So why don't you ever meet anyone named Muhammad Chen?
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that despite those being the most common given and surnames in the world, the combination of them is not common at all. Why? Because Muhammad is a name associated with the Muslim world, Chen is a name associated with Han Chinese, and those are two worlds that don't have a great deal of overlap. So the world's most average name is actually a very uncommon one.
Actually I know for a fact that there are a few Muhammad Chens out there somewhere, but my guess is that almost none of them actually live in China. Here’s why:
Muslims do exist in China - there are estimated to be around 20 million of them and perhaps many more according to some estimates. The main Muslim groups in China are the Hui (Chinese Muslims), and various Central Asian people (including Uighurs, Kazakhs, Salar and Dongxiang) from Western China.
Many of the Central Asians tend to have Muslim/Turkic names (including Muhammad, I assume), but because they are not Han Chinese, it is unlikely that they would have a surname like Chen. (An example is the Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer.) By contrast some of these groups, such as the Salar and Dongxiang, have Mongol or Chinese names.
The Hui, who make up around half of all Muslims in China, often claim ancestry dating back to the Arab and Persian traders who arrived in China during Mongol rule. But even though they are officially considered an ethnic minority, the Hui are effectively Han Chinese in virtually all aspects save religion. They look like Han Chinese, speak Chinese, and have Chinese names. The Arabic names of their ancestors have become Chinese over time – so Muhammad might become Ma, or Mu.
So even among the 20-million-plus Muslims in China, you would be hard-pressed to find a Muhammad Chen. The Chinese and Arabic naming traditions are not so conducive to merger; although if there exists a Hong Kong pop singer named Khalil Fong, then anything is possible.
So where to find a Muhammad Chen?
Out of curiosity I ran a Facebook search on Muhammad Chen, and all the results I could find with an identifiable nationality were from Indonesia. This makes sense. Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, has around 10 million ethnic Chinese. Of those, only a minority are Muslim, and while some of them have fully adopted Arabic or Indonesian names, some may have adopted a Muslim name yet kept their surname. Alternatively, the Muhammad Chens could be the product of a mixed Chinese and pribumi (native Indonesian) marriage. Similar result for spelling variations of Muhammad (Mohammad, Muhamad, etc), and I even tried Muhammad Chan for the hell of it. Most seemed to be Indonesian.
So there you have it. I dunno if that interested you, but it did me. Maybe I need to find better hobbies.
Meet Muhammad Chen. He is the world's most average person.
Well, sort of. According to this post over at Abagond's blog, the world's most average person is a 28 year-old male who lives in Shenzhen in China and is a Roman Catholic. His name is a combination of the world's most common surname (Chen) and the world's most common given name (Muhammad).
So why don't you ever meet anyone named Muhammad Chen?
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that despite those being the most common given and surnames in the world, the combination of them is not common at all. Why? Because Muhammad is a name associated with the Muslim world, Chen is a name associated with Han Chinese, and those are two worlds that don't have a great deal of overlap. So the world's most average name is actually a very uncommon one.
Actually I know for a fact that there are a few Muhammad Chens out there somewhere, but my guess is that almost none of them actually live in China. Here’s why:
Muslims do exist in China - there are estimated to be around 20 million of them and perhaps many more according to some estimates. The main Muslim groups in China are the Hui (Chinese Muslims), and various Central Asian people (including Uighurs, Kazakhs, Salar and Dongxiang) from Western China.
Many of the Central Asians tend to have Muslim/Turkic names (including Muhammad, I assume), but because they are not Han Chinese, it is unlikely that they would have a surname like Chen. (An example is the Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer.) By contrast some of these groups, such as the Salar and Dongxiang, have Mongol or Chinese names.
The Hui, who make up around half of all Muslims in China, often claim ancestry dating back to the Arab and Persian traders who arrived in China during Mongol rule. But even though they are officially considered an ethnic minority, the Hui are effectively Han Chinese in virtually all aspects save religion. They look like Han Chinese, speak Chinese, and have Chinese names. The Arabic names of their ancestors have become Chinese over time – so Muhammad might become Ma, or Mu.
So even among the 20-million-plus Muslims in China, you would be hard-pressed to find a Muhammad Chen. The Chinese and Arabic naming traditions are not so conducive to merger; although if there exists a Hong Kong pop singer named Khalil Fong, then anything is possible.
So where to find a Muhammad Chen?
Out of curiosity I ran a Facebook search on Muhammad Chen, and all the results I could find with an identifiable nationality were from Indonesia. This makes sense. Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, has around 10 million ethnic Chinese. Of those, only a minority are Muslim, and while some of them have fully adopted Arabic or Indonesian names, some may have adopted a Muslim name yet kept their surname. Alternatively, the Muhammad Chens could be the product of a mixed Chinese and pribumi (native Indonesian) marriage. Similar result for spelling variations of Muhammad (Mohammad, Muhamad, etc), and I even tried Muhammad Chan for the hell of it. Most seemed to be Indonesian.
So there you have it. I dunno if that interested you, but it did me. Maybe I need to find better hobbies.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Is it Islamophobic to ban the burqa?
The French government led by Nicolas Sarkozy has banned the wearing of the burqa and niqab, resulting in protests in Paris and London.
It’s an issue that makes for some strange bedfellows. Left-wing feminists can find themselves agreeing with right-wing xenophobes in wanting it banned. Left-wing civil libertarians find themselves in agreement with right-wing Islamic hardliners in supporting women’s right to wear it.
A common stance you’ll hear is that the current climate of opposition to the burqa and niqab, which has led to debate in the UK and Australia too, is a reflection of a growing feeling of Islamophobia. Is this correct, or is it possible to separate opposition to the burqa from anti-Islamic prejudice?
Let’s establish one thing from the start. Yes, there’s a lot of Islamophobia around. And yes, the French government’s moves to ban the burqa are almost certainly part of a broader agenda that is at least somewhat informed by racism and xenophobia. Thus, many Muslims see the attack on the burqa and niqab as an attack on Muslims in general, and understandably take an “us vs them” position.
It’s also important to note, however, that not every misgiving expressed about the cultural impact of Islam on our society deserves the label of “Islamophobia”. And the fact that a ban on the burqa is supported by some fairly unsavoury xenophobic elements does not mean that it is therefore xenophobic to oppose the burqa. (Hitler was into vegetarianism, but that doesn’t make vegetarians nazis.)
There are plenty of reasons to oppose and indeed ban the burqa, which have absolutely nothing to do with hate and fear of Muslims. It is possible to separate a people from a practice. As an example, FGM (female genital mutilation) is an ancient (and most would argue, barbaric) practice that is prevalent in the Horn of Africa; it has been estimated that around 74% of Ethiopian women (Christian and Muslim alike) have experienced some version of “female circumcision”, usually carried out on children by older women. Now, I quite like Ethiopians and have no problem whatsoever with them immigrating to my country, Australia. But does that mean I think FGM should ever be tolerated in Australia? Hell no.
I don’t particular like the idea of women feeling obligated to wear a hijab (headscarf), but I don’t object if they choose to wear it, and would support their right to do so. Hijab doesn’t really impede a woman in any meaningful way, and allows her to interact with society just like anyone else. But it is not really possible to experience the full range of social interactions that most of us take for granted while wearing a full-body covering. Covering the face is an enormous obstacle to communication with others, and makes it extremely difficult to identify an individual.
It’s also important to note that while wearing the burqa and niqab is something practiced by some Muslims, it is not mandated or even encouraged by Islamic teachings. It is a cultural practice (the burqa is Afghan in origin and the niqab is from the Arabian peninsula). Islam states that women should dress and behave modestly, which may or may not involve wearing a headscarf, but it says nothing about covering one’s face.
Before lumping the anti-burqa crowd together with the Islamophobes, it’s worth reflecting that many Muslim nations have taken a firm stance against the garment. Turkey, Tunisia and Malaysia, for example, have all introduced laws banning or restricting its use. Now, I’m not holding up any of those countries as any kind of benchmark for civil liberties, but they demonstrate that one can oppose the burqa and not be anti-Islam. (Indeed, the majority of French Muslims apparently support the ban.) The aforementioned countries have had no problem declaring that “we are Islamic, but face-covering is not an accepted part of our culture.”
But this ignores that The State already dictates what we can wear in public. Try walking naked or semi-naked in the jungles of New Guinea and you wouldn’t be doing anything out of the ordinary; yet try it in a public place in a major Western city and see how long it takes before the police arrest you. Likewise, in some rural traditional societies one can openly display a machete or gun on one’s person, yet this would be a crime in a great many cities worldwide.
You could also argue that polygamy between consenting adults is also a victimless crime. Likewise for incest between consenting adults. Yet most countries have strict regulations forbidding these practices. Child marriage? Accepted in some countries, outlawed in most.
There are no outraged cries of Islamophobia from Muslims and civil libertarians that polygamy is outlawed in most Western countries. Because as in all the above cases, the laws reflect that certain practices are simply not compatible with the culture of a nation.
So is it really a woman’s free will to wear a full-body covering? Or is it being forced upon them by men? In Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, it is certainly not a free choice, at least in the majority of cases. What about in the West? That’s a trickier proposition. Some women clearly exercise an apparently free choice to wear these garments. I say "apparently", because I freedom of choice is questionable here. Burqa and niqab symbolise the belief that there is something inherently sordid and temptful about a woman's face, and that it is somehow unsafe for anyone to see it aside from her husband and relatives. It is unquestionably a symbol of male oppression of women, and a woman who chooses to wear it is unwittingly complicit in her own emotional abuse. Think of it as a form of Stockholm Syndrome. Some who wear the garment believe that it is a way of better pleasing Allah, but I'll believe that when Muslim men start pleasing Allah by wearing it as well.
And I have absolutely no doubt that the more women choose to cover their faces, it will lead to more women being coerced to wear them. This already happens with the hijab. In countries where hijab is common but completely optional, there is still frequently a judgement that accompanies those women who choose not to wear it; this kind of social pressure leads to more unwilling wearers of hijab, and I do not doubt that the same thing would happen with the niqab or burqa.
One of the better arguments against banning the burqa is that those women who wear it will be isolated; they will be unable to venture out of their homes, as they can only go outside if they are covered. (This usually comes with the assumption that this isolation is being enforced by their husbands, which says it all really.) I do realise this is a reality and will happen in some cases. However, such a perspective is admitting defeat. I firmly believe that a woman who is unable to wear a burqa and unable to leave the house will soon decide that integrating with wider society is not such a bad thing after all. Even an oppressive husband will most likely come to the same decision due to the sheer impractically of keeping his wife at home all the time.
Rather than looking at wanting to ban the burqa as Islamophobic, look at it this way; the presence of such garments actually increases Islamophobia. Given that the garment and what it represents is abhorrent to most non-Muslims, it is likely to provide fuel for those negative sentiments in the community towards Muslims. In a time when the presence of Muslims in the West is under increasing scrutiny, most Muslims wish to show the wider community that they can fit in, and that despite some differences, “we are just regular people like you”.
Why tolerate something that says exactly the opposite? The niqab and burqa symbolise rejection of the wider social norms, rejection of the possibility of normal social interaction with the vast majority, rejection of the cultural values that people in Western countries hold dear. Women clad in these garments are a walking advertisement for those who believe that there is something so starkly different and backward about Muslims that they cannot fit into Western society. It is very much in the interest of Muslims that these costumes and their accompanying cultural mindset are confined to history.
It’s an issue that makes for some strange bedfellows. Left-wing feminists can find themselves agreeing with right-wing xenophobes in wanting it banned. Left-wing civil libertarians find themselves in agreement with right-wing Islamic hardliners in supporting women’s right to wear it.
A common stance you’ll hear is that the current climate of opposition to the burqa and niqab, which has led to debate in the UK and Australia too, is a reflection of a growing feeling of Islamophobia. Is this correct, or is it possible to separate opposition to the burqa from anti-Islamic prejudice?
Let’s establish one thing from the start. Yes, there’s a lot of Islamophobia around. And yes, the French government’s moves to ban the burqa are almost certainly part of a broader agenda that is at least somewhat informed by racism and xenophobia. Thus, many Muslims see the attack on the burqa and niqab as an attack on Muslims in general, and understandably take an “us vs them” position.
It’s also important to note, however, that not every misgiving expressed about the cultural impact of Islam on our society deserves the label of “Islamophobia”. And the fact that a ban on the burqa is supported by some fairly unsavoury xenophobic elements does not mean that it is therefore xenophobic to oppose the burqa. (Hitler was into vegetarianism, but that doesn’t make vegetarians nazis.)
I don’t particular like the idea of women feeling obligated to wear a hijab (headscarf), but I don’t object if they choose to wear it, and would support their right to do so. Hijab doesn’t really impede a woman in any meaningful way, and allows her to interact with society just like anyone else. But it is not really possible to experience the full range of social interactions that most of us take for granted while wearing a full-body covering. Covering the face is an enormous obstacle to communication with others, and makes it extremely difficult to identify an individual.
It’s also important to note that while wearing the burqa and niqab is something practiced by some Muslims, it is not mandated or even encouraged by Islamic teachings. It is a cultural practice (the burqa is Afghan in origin and the niqab is from the Arabian peninsula). Islam states that women should dress and behave modestly, which may or may not involve wearing a headscarf, but it says nothing about covering one’s face.
Before lumping the anti-burqa crowd together with the Islamophobes, it’s worth reflecting that many Muslim nations have taken a firm stance against the garment. Turkey, Tunisia and Malaysia, for example, have all introduced laws banning or restricting its use. Now, I’m not holding up any of those countries as any kind of benchmark for civil liberties, but they demonstrate that one can oppose the burqa and not be anti-Islam. (Indeed, the majority of French Muslims apparently support the ban.) The aforementioned countries have had no problem declaring that “we are Islamic, but face-covering is not an accepted part of our culture.”
“FREE WILL”
Probably the most common reason for opposing a ban on the burqa/niqab is freedom; in a liberal democracy, we do not have the right to dictate what others wish to wear, even if we personally find it distasteful. This is obviously an essential point to consider. I agree that it is highly problematic to have government-mandated “style police”. Likewise, the wearing of a particular costume is a “victimless crime”, in that if a woman chooses to don it, then she is clearly not being harmed by it, and nor is anyone else.But this ignores that The State already dictates what we can wear in public. Try walking naked or semi-naked in the jungles of New Guinea and you wouldn’t be doing anything out of the ordinary; yet try it in a public place in a major Western city and see how long it takes before the police arrest you. Likewise, in some rural traditional societies one can openly display a machete or gun on one’s person, yet this would be a crime in a great many cities worldwide.
You could also argue that polygamy between consenting adults is also a victimless crime. Likewise for incest between consenting adults. Yet most countries have strict regulations forbidding these practices. Child marriage? Accepted in some countries, outlawed in most.
There are no outraged cries of Islamophobia from Muslims and civil libertarians that polygamy is outlawed in most Western countries. Because as in all the above cases, the laws reflect that certain practices are simply not compatible with the culture of a nation.
So is it really a woman’s free will to wear a full-body covering? Or is it being forced upon them by men? In Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, it is certainly not a free choice, at least in the majority of cases. What about in the West? That’s a trickier proposition. Some women clearly exercise an apparently free choice to wear these garments. I say "apparently", because I freedom of choice is questionable here. Burqa and niqab symbolise the belief that there is something inherently sordid and temptful about a woman's face, and that it is somehow unsafe for anyone to see it aside from her husband and relatives. It is unquestionably a symbol of male oppression of women, and a woman who chooses to wear it is unwittingly complicit in her own emotional abuse. Think of it as a form of Stockholm Syndrome. Some who wear the garment believe that it is a way of better pleasing Allah, but I'll believe that when Muslim men start pleasing Allah by wearing it as well.
And I have absolutely no doubt that the more women choose to cover their faces, it will lead to more women being coerced to wear them. This already happens with the hijab. In countries where hijab is common but completely optional, there is still frequently a judgement that accompanies those women who choose not to wear it; this kind of social pressure leads to more unwilling wearers of hijab, and I do not doubt that the same thing would happen with the niqab or burqa.
One of the better arguments against banning the burqa is that those women who wear it will be isolated; they will be unable to venture out of their homes, as they can only go outside if they are covered. (This usually comes with the assumption that this isolation is being enforced by their husbands, which says it all really.) I do realise this is a reality and will happen in some cases. However, such a perspective is admitting defeat. I firmly believe that a woman who is unable to wear a burqa and unable to leave the house will soon decide that integrating with wider society is not such a bad thing after all. Even an oppressive husband will most likely come to the same decision due to the sheer impractically of keeping his wife at home all the time.
Rather than looking at wanting to ban the burqa as Islamophobic, look at it this way; the presence of such garments actually increases Islamophobia. Given that the garment and what it represents is abhorrent to most non-Muslims, it is likely to provide fuel for those negative sentiments in the community towards Muslims. In a time when the presence of Muslims in the West is under increasing scrutiny, most Muslims wish to show the wider community that they can fit in, and that despite some differences, “we are just regular people like you”.
Why tolerate something that says exactly the opposite? The niqab and burqa symbolise rejection of the wider social norms, rejection of the possibility of normal social interaction with the vast majority, rejection of the cultural values that people in Western countries hold dear. Women clad in these garments are a walking advertisement for those who believe that there is something so starkly different and backward about Muslims that they cannot fit into Western society. It is very much in the interest of Muslims that these costumes and their accompanying cultural mindset are confined to history.
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Happy now, Pastor Terry?
Reports are that at least 12 UN employees have been killed after a UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif was attacked by a mob of as many as 2000 people protesting (peacefully at first) against the burning of the Qur'an by Pastors Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp in Gainsville, Florida. While today another 8 people have died and at least 61 injured after young men rampaged through Kandahar.
Last year, when Jones announced he was going to burn the Muslim holy book, thousands took to the streets in Afghanistan to protest, and a NATO base was pelted with stones, while in Kashmir a Christian Church was burned and 15 people killed. And that was only when he SAID he was going to do it (he subsequently decided not to).
For some reason, Jones decided to go through with it last week. And predictably, now that the news has filtered through to some of the most unruly parts of the Islamic world, all hell has broken loose.
Of course, the real villains here are those nutjobs who decided to vent their anger at some obscure attention-seeker from Florida on UN staff who had absolutely nothing to do with him. Let's not forget that.
But we all know these people exist. And if you're smart you don't rile them up. It's a shame that it has to be this way, but we all need to be careful of what we say when fundamentalist fascists are around, because they'll kill somebody.
Of course, Jones' point all along was that Islam is a religion of violence, and the Afghani protestors have clearly done him a huge favour with the predictably violent manner of their rebuttal.
Now personally I think in a perfect world, anyone should be able to burn a Qur'an or any other religious text. But the reality is that freedom of speech has its limits; the classic example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech, and what Jones has done is basically the equivalent of this. If it is obvious that your free expression is going to lead to violent unrest (and it was obvious in this case), then you need to face criminal consequences. This incident has potentially far worse consequences than what we have seen today; it could potentially set back UN and US efforts in Afghanistan back a decade.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Saturday, 12 March 2011
Pursuing a better, smarter kind of immigrant?
Had an interesting discussion last week via the comments of this post with Razib Khan, who blogs prolifically at Gene Expression and elsewhere. It pertains to whether certain groups of immigrants (and Muslims in particular) are more problematic than others, and whether some kind of policy should be enacted to take this into account. I've included the comments below, after which I'll post some of my own thoughts. I've edited my own comments for length here.
(For the record, Razib is a Bangladeshi-American scientist. I assume he was raised as a Muslim but is now a passionate atheist. He's also considerably to the Right of me politically.)
I don't really have any good solutions here but I'll throw out a few ideas. I'm speaking from an Australian perspective but the same roughly applies to other Western nations.
Immigration brings changes to any region or state, and like any phenomenon there will be both positive effects (added richness and dynamism to the culture, broadening of perspectives and opportunities, etc), and negative effects (environmental strain, ethnic tension, etc). There is no way to ensure that immigration has no negative aspects to it whatsoever. However, it would be negligent not to consider how migration and cultural integration policies could be improved to ensure that negative aspects can be minimised.
The general Left-Liberal position on immigration and diversity is this: that all races and cultures are basically equal. Given the right opportunities, anyone from any cultural background has the potential to succeed in a Western country.
It's an admirable perspective on things, based on a fairly optimistic view of human nature. But is it realistic? Obviously those on the Right would say no. The conservative point of view has long been that those of nationalities very different to the dominant ethnicity (in this case, Anglo-Saxon) are unlikely to be able to sufficiently integrate, and thus their immigration should be restricted.
The elephant in the room that the Left don't want to talk about and the Right often do is that some immigrant groups just don't perform as well as others on key indicators, and some seem far less likely to successfully integrate into the wider community than others. Some are over-represented in crime statistics.
In the Australian context, if we use crime rate as a key indicator, then a number of ethnicities have significantly higher rates of arrest and imprisonment than the locally-born. It's interesting to note that each of those ethnicities has it's own set of circumstances that impacts on crime rate, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to view it in terms of "race". For example, Vietnamese have a higher than average crime rate, yet the Chinese rate is considerably lower than average. The crime rate is high amongst Somalis and Sudanese, two communities based predominantly on refugees fleeing civil war; yet those Africans who migrated here under other schemes (Kenyans, Zimbabweans, Ghanaians, etc) tend to perform far better. This is primarily because they are more likely to be educated and professional, which echoes Razib's point about the educated being better equipped to integrate. Bear in mind as well that those who settle as refugees are more likely to have experienced trauma and have a broken family structure, and because of their poverty are more likely to live in areas in which the crime rate is already high.
Is the solution then simply to take only business migrants and reduce our refugee intake? I am certain that plenty would agree, but it's not an option in my book. Australia has a sometimes shaky record on asylum seekers, but few in politics would seriously look to make significant reductions to our humanitarian intake.
Here's one idea posited by commenter John Comnenus on the blog of Andrew Bolt, who is Australia's best-known conservative columnist. I have real problems with the implications of this, but it's an example of the sort of ideas that are out there:
Personally, I can't abide the idea of barring people from immigrating because of their race or where they came from. Most people would rightly regard that as racist. Of course, it's not an uncommon phenomenon, and it is really only Western democracies that believe it morally wrong to discriminate based on race. Japan, for example, has no problem doing so. While the introduction of such a policy would no doubt gain significant popular support in Australia, it would be so problematic and divisive that we are unlikely to see any such thing in the near future.
If we were to enforce a more rigid approach to immigration and settlement, it would have to be a non-racist one. Now, while I tend to despise the inevitable cries of "Send 'em back where they came from" anytime someone ethnic commits a crime, deportation does need to be a potential tool for deterring criminals. In some cases it would probably be the best option. Obviously taking up citizenship means that they becomine solely Australia's problem and exempt from deportation, but I'd even propose a "probationary" citizenship period of say, 3 years, in which it can be revoked in the event of serious crime or multiple minor crimes.
So what of the idea, suggested by Razib, of filtering on intelligence? It's an intriguing idea. At what IQ does one draw the line? 100? 90? Let's assume for a moment that this was practical; it still opens up a can of worms about how to measure intelligence, whether it is possible to make intelligence tests that are free of cultural bias, and whether someone with a high IQ must necessarily be a better contributor to society than someone with a low IQ.
It's fair to say that the majority of people involved in anti-social and criminal activities would be located in the low-to-average intelligence range. But it's also worthwhile mentioning that my discussion with Razib above focused largely on Muslims, and moderate vs fundamentalist. How does that equate with intelligence? As one of Razib's own posts details, there is a strong correlation between IQ and religiosity; the less intelligent are more likely to believe in the Bible (or presumably the Qur'an as the case may be) as the literal word of God, and to have a religiously conservative worldview. Higher IQ people tend more towards atheism, agnosticism and religious moderation, as well as liberal and moderate political views. But it should also be apparent that religion often negates rationality. I know numerous highly intelligent doctors who are Creationists. And the hardline Islamic lunar Right likewise seems to have a large number of articulate and intelligent people.
So would IQ-screening filter out all the dangerous nuts and extremists? Of course not. But extremism nonetheless requires a fairly ignorant base to work out of. If you accept that there is a correlation between IQ and social class, and between social class and the likelihood of being a criminal, then there is definitely an argument for testing immigrants for intelligence. In theory, anyway.
I don't ever see it being a reality. It might be feasible to apply such a test to economic migrants, but it's highly problematic to make someone fleeing torture, persecution and ethnic cleansing sit an IQ test in order to be granted safe haven. Likewise, is discriminating against the less intelligent (or more pertinently, those who don't perform well on IQ tests) really that much better than discriminating against someone because of their race? There are plenty of working-class folks who would bomb out on an IQ test, yet run their own businesses, employ many other people, and contribute greatly to society.
So beyond some minor tweaking of immigration controls we have now, there may be little else that may be done to guarantee we are letting in the right kind of migrant, at least without contravening some of our basic principles of fairness and equality. Thus it becomes essential that the right kinds of social policies are enacted to encourage an integrated society.
Is multiculturalism the problem? That largely depends on your interpretation of what that term means. "Culture" encompasses a whole list of things both good and bad, and it is possible to have a society made up of many ethnicities, yet firmly reject some of the practices that they may bring with them. Examples are polygamy, female genital mutilation and forced marriage, which occur in a wide variety of cultures worldwide; these are all outlawed in Australia, yet they are still tacitly accepted by some communities and thus persist covertly. As important as it is to respect and accommodate everyone's cultural perspectives, this can only go so far, and some things must be unequivocally rejected. (And in many cases, are rejected; for example, the consumption of dogs, cats and parts of endangered animals is all part of Chinese culture, but that is unlikely to be considered acceptable in the West, ever.)
I'll return to the topic of Islam. As I stated earlier, I agree with Razib that Muslim immigrants present a greater challenge to the fabric of society than other immigrant groups. Yet it is essential to distinguish between moderate and hardline here. The great majority of Muslims in the West are moderate and fit in without any major problems. Moderate Muslims realise that certain aspects of their religion are incompatible with modern life and can be conveniently ignored (in the same way that mainstream Christians don't adhere to the bit in the Bible where it says anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death). But of course, in any religious population there are hardliners, and Muslim hardliners tend to be a whole lot more worrying than Buddhist hardliners or Christian hardliners. Even without taking into account the potential threat of violence, Islam in its stricter interpretations makes it virtually impossible to integrate into a Western society, since it mandates separation from non-Muslims. A sensible government policy creates conditions in which the hardliners are marginalised to the point of insignificance; poor government policy allows hardline ideas to flourish and infect the moderate religious population.
Razib rightly points out that the UK stacks up poorly in this respect, whereas Australia, the US and Canada seem to have done somewhat better. Surveys seem to indicate that young British Muslims are actually more conservative than their parents' generation, and more conservative than their counterparts in the other Anglophone countries. For example, one indicator of extreme views is whether a person believes that apostates (those who abandon Islam) should be punished by death. According to this Pew Research Centre study, 84% of Egyptian Muslims and 76% of Pakistani Muslims agree with this, whereas in Turkey, Lebanon and Indonesia this was the view of only 5%, 6% and 30% respectively. Yet amongst British Muslims aged 16-24, according to this article, 36% believe in the death penalty for apostasy. 13% of young British Muslims expressed support for Al-Qaeda, compared to only 5% in Turkey. (I'm not saying I put total faith in these surveys - the figure for Indonesia seems high to me - but that's what we have to work with.) In other words, despite their proximity to Western liberal values which emphasise freedom and tolerance for diversity, Britain is breeding a generation of young Muslims that is more extreme than numerous countries which are almost entirely Muslim. It is telling that Umar Abdulmutallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) acquired his extremist mentality not in his native Nigeria, but while studying at University College in London.
If Turkey (99% Muslim) can apparently be so much more progressive and secular than Britain's Islamic community, then it shows that the presence of Muslims does not mean extremism; it is the culture of that society that allows extremism to flourish. I'm not going to proclaim Turkey as any kind of champion of human rights and tolerance, but it has steadfastly maintained a moderate interpretation of Islam which has little room for extremism. So how has Britain managed to nurture a Muslim community where extreme beliefs are allowed to fester?
To an extent it is because Westen countries draw their Muslim migrants from some places with far more medieval attitudes than Turkey. But largely it is because multiculturalism is often too tolerant of intolerance - or at least a certain kind of intolerance. The age of political correctness has rightly turned white people's xenophobia into a taboo, yet it has too often given non-whites (or non-Christians) a free pass. Western governments' tolerance has allowed some mosques to import imams from overseas to preach violent and intolerant versions of Islam, and often thrown in the funding to do it with, all in the name of diversity. In Britain, crazed Islamist activist Anjem Choudry is allowed to publicly endorse terrorism and violence while picking up a social security cheque from the same government he so despises.
I'm firmly in support of a society in which all ethnic groups and religions can intermingle. But that only works if those various groups are prepared to play along. Expecting white Australians to embrace and accept cultural diversity is hollow if migrant groups are patronisingly viewed as exempt from having to be tolerant. Multiculturalism as fine with me only so long as it doesn't forget this.
(For the record, Razib is a Bangladeshi-American scientist. I assume he was raised as a Muslim but is now a passionate atheist. He's also considerably to the Right of me politically.)
Razib: whatever the details, i do think people need to be more cognizant of differences between various immigrant groups. muslims in particular, all things equal, are very problematic. specifically, i suspect a lot of the issues are pronounced in muslims from nations where they are a majority, and the culture mores as such that non-muslims are marginalized and "put in their place." muslims who are from india, often ismaili, are much more assimilated into british society than those from pakistan. some of this is due to human capital differentials (ismailis are often secondary migrants from east africa who had a history of being business people), but some of it is surely to the fact that ismailis in india have had to learn to fit in as one group among many, while muslims from pakistan come from a society where non-muslims are being cleansed and subject to de facto "jim crow" practices (because they are "dirty" kufars, with many christians and hindus being "low caste" to boot).
Eurasian Sensation: I do actually agree that Islam presents a challenge to multiculturalism in a way that [other, non-religion-specific] immigrant groups do not, since in its stricter interpretations it is incompatible with sharing a society with "kufar". However I also think that people who are Muslim have made valuable contributions to the fabric of my country. So having Muslim immigrants is not really the problem per se; it's how they are managed in their new home.
Razib: muslim immigrants from pakistan, unless appropriately sifted, *are* a problem. "moderates" in pakistan are not moderates like you and i would find congenial. moderates from turkey are less problematic. because of the influence and prestige of anti-pluralist muslim subcultures in the core of the arab world islam as a whole has a problem. if senegal was the model there wouldn't be a problem, but due to its marginality it's a deviation, not the expectation.
both racialists and multiculturalists elide these critical distinctions, because they make their positions easier to defend. after wall, who wants to defend a "crazy racist position" or the "crazy anti-white leftist position."
Eurasian Sensation: Your phrase "unless appropriately sifted" intrigues me. I'm opposed to racially discriminatory immigration policy, yet at the same time I want us to be more discerning in who we let in. How you do propose this sifting is done?
Razib: well, if you don't want to be culturally biased, filter on intelligence. real educational qualifications. the reality is that a lot of the most radical islamists are upwardly mobile, but their radicalism is in part a function of their lack of appropriate economic reward in societies where patronage and nepotism of entrenched elites keeps them from getting their just desserts
the main issue with education isn't that it makes people more liberal as such. *but*, if you are a professional it is almost impossible not to be socially integrated, and therefore see the "kufar" as a fellow human being (i.e., if they're your patients, clients, etc.).
that's why the working class pakistani proletariat in britain is terrifying. they live in their own subculture, and interact lot with "back home." and the amount of coddling they get from the british liberal mainstream is shocking. e.g., their persistent cousin marriage practices result in a genuine burden on the NIH way out of proportion to their numbers because of recessive diseases.
p.s on the last part about coddling. i went through britain last spring, and the working class pakistanis who adhere to conservative muslim values have their own place in that nation. it's accepted, tolerated, and encouraged. but they're nearly as sociopathological as the drunken british lower classes (in a different way). the white lower classes are not given the "space" that the pakistani working classes are, and that's because the latter are viewed as a "different culture," with "their own ways."
I don't really have any good solutions here but I'll throw out a few ideas. I'm speaking from an Australian perspective but the same roughly applies to other Western nations.
Immigration brings changes to any region or state, and like any phenomenon there will be both positive effects (added richness and dynamism to the culture, broadening of perspectives and opportunities, etc), and negative effects (environmental strain, ethnic tension, etc). There is no way to ensure that immigration has no negative aspects to it whatsoever. However, it would be negligent not to consider how migration and cultural integration policies could be improved to ensure that negative aspects can be minimised.
The general Left-Liberal position on immigration and diversity is this: that all races and cultures are basically equal. Given the right opportunities, anyone from any cultural background has the potential to succeed in a Western country.
It's an admirable perspective on things, based on a fairly optimistic view of human nature. But is it realistic? Obviously those on the Right would say no. The conservative point of view has long been that those of nationalities very different to the dominant ethnicity (in this case, Anglo-Saxon) are unlikely to be able to sufficiently integrate, and thus their immigration should be restricted.
The elephant in the room that the Left don't want to talk about and the Right often do is that some immigrant groups just don't perform as well as others on key indicators, and some seem far less likely to successfully integrate into the wider community than others. Some are over-represented in crime statistics.
In the Australian context, if we use crime rate as a key indicator, then a number of ethnicities have significantly higher rates of arrest and imprisonment than the locally-born. It's interesting to note that each of those ethnicities has it's own set of circumstances that impacts on crime rate, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to view it in terms of "race". For example, Vietnamese have a higher than average crime rate, yet the Chinese rate is considerably lower than average. The crime rate is high amongst Somalis and Sudanese, two communities based predominantly on refugees fleeing civil war; yet those Africans who migrated here under other schemes (Kenyans, Zimbabweans, Ghanaians, etc) tend to perform far better. This is primarily because they are more likely to be educated and professional, which echoes Razib's point about the educated being better equipped to integrate. Bear in mind as well that those who settle as refugees are more likely to have experienced trauma and have a broken family structure, and because of their poverty are more likely to live in areas in which the crime rate is already high.
Is the solution then simply to take only business migrants and reduce our refugee intake? I am certain that plenty would agree, but it's not an option in my book. Australia has a sometimes shaky record on asylum seekers, but few in politics would seriously look to make significant reductions to our humanitarian intake.
Here's one idea posited by commenter John Comnenus on the blog of Andrew Bolt, who is Australia's best-known conservative columnist. I have real problems with the implications of this, but it's an example of the sort of ideas that are out there:
In my opinion we should accept no migrants from countries that has a serious criminal incidence of more than 50% above the Australian level. The cost to the public in terms of victim costs, policing, justice and jailing means these groups fail the cost benefit test. Given that it is almost impossible to determine who will be a criminal we should have a blanket ban. Countries in this category are coloured dark red in the graph.Whether you like this plan or not is probably linked to your level of optimism about human nature and the prospects of those populations "levelling out" in terms of their crime rate, and immigration policy seems to assume that after some initial teething problems, crime issues within some of those key groups will normalise over time. If you're curious, the countries that Comnenus would exclude according to his plan are Tonga, Samoa, Romania, Sudan, Vietnam and Lebanon. Certainly those communities have produced more than their share of criminals, but they've also produced two Young Australians of the Year (Tan Le and Khoa Do), a former Premier of Victoria (Steve Bracks) and arguably Australia's greatest ever soccer player (Tim Cahill), to name just a few. Obviously, a few famous standouts are not representative of a whole community, but neither should an ethnic group be judged on the actions of its worst elements. And while crime is a serious issue, it doesn't define an entire community. Vietnamese-Australians, for example, have undergone a rapid transformation from a people mostly confined to blue-collar work in the 70s, to a highly-educated group strongly represented in professional fields. It tells you something about Comnenus and Bolt that their impression of Vietnamese-Australians seems to be predominantly as criminals.
Immigrants ethnicity where the rate of serious criminality is more than 25% above the Australian born level should be subject to more detailed and thorough background checking. Countries in this group are coloured pink.
Countries in the gray zone i.e. within 10% of Australian norm should also have more detailed screening.
Australia’s immigration program should be heavily weighted to the countries in the green category, where the rate of criminality is less than half the Australian born rate. Over time such a policy will decrease crime rates, impact on fewer victims, cost less and leave a more positive view of immigration generally. It would make sure that immigration is being run in the national interest not the immigrants’ interest. The diversity in the green countries (China, India, UK) demonstrates unequivocally that this approach is NOT racist, it is colour blind without being behaviour blind.
Personally, I can't abide the idea of barring people from immigrating because of their race or where they came from. Most people would rightly regard that as racist. Of course, it's not an uncommon phenomenon, and it is really only Western democracies that believe it morally wrong to discriminate based on race. Japan, for example, has no problem doing so. While the introduction of such a policy would no doubt gain significant popular support in Australia, it would be so problematic and divisive that we are unlikely to see any such thing in the near future.
If we were to enforce a more rigid approach to immigration and settlement, it would have to be a non-racist one. Now, while I tend to despise the inevitable cries of "Send 'em back where they came from" anytime someone ethnic commits a crime, deportation does need to be a potential tool for deterring criminals. In some cases it would probably be the best option. Obviously taking up citizenship means that they becomine solely Australia's problem and exempt from deportation, but I'd even propose a "probationary" citizenship period of say, 3 years, in which it can be revoked in the event of serious crime or multiple minor crimes.
So what of the idea, suggested by Razib, of filtering on intelligence? It's an intriguing idea. At what IQ does one draw the line? 100? 90? Let's assume for a moment that this was practical; it still opens up a can of worms about how to measure intelligence, whether it is possible to make intelligence tests that are free of cultural bias, and whether someone with a high IQ must necessarily be a better contributor to society than someone with a low IQ.
It's fair to say that the majority of people involved in anti-social and criminal activities would be located in the low-to-average intelligence range. But it's also worthwhile mentioning that my discussion with Razib above focused largely on Muslims, and moderate vs fundamentalist. How does that equate with intelligence? As one of Razib's own posts details, there is a strong correlation between IQ and religiosity; the less intelligent are more likely to believe in the Bible (or presumably the Qur'an as the case may be) as the literal word of God, and to have a religiously conservative worldview. Higher IQ people tend more towards atheism, agnosticism and religious moderation, as well as liberal and moderate political views. But it should also be apparent that religion often negates rationality. I know numerous highly intelligent doctors who are Creationists. And the hardline Islamic lunar Right likewise seems to have a large number of articulate and intelligent people.
So would IQ-screening filter out all the dangerous nuts and extremists? Of course not. But extremism nonetheless requires a fairly ignorant base to work out of. If you accept that there is a correlation between IQ and social class, and between social class and the likelihood of being a criminal, then there is definitely an argument for testing immigrants for intelligence. In theory, anyway.
I don't ever see it being a reality. It might be feasible to apply such a test to economic migrants, but it's highly problematic to make someone fleeing torture, persecution and ethnic cleansing sit an IQ test in order to be granted safe haven. Likewise, is discriminating against the less intelligent (or more pertinently, those who don't perform well on IQ tests) really that much better than discriminating against someone because of their race? There are plenty of working-class folks who would bomb out on an IQ test, yet run their own businesses, employ many other people, and contribute greatly to society.
So beyond some minor tweaking of immigration controls we have now, there may be little else that may be done to guarantee we are letting in the right kind of migrant, at least without contravening some of our basic principles of fairness and equality. Thus it becomes essential that the right kinds of social policies are enacted to encourage an integrated society.
Is multiculturalism the problem? That largely depends on your interpretation of what that term means. "Culture" encompasses a whole list of things both good and bad, and it is possible to have a society made up of many ethnicities, yet firmly reject some of the practices that they may bring with them. Examples are polygamy, female genital mutilation and forced marriage, which occur in a wide variety of cultures worldwide; these are all outlawed in Australia, yet they are still tacitly accepted by some communities and thus persist covertly. As important as it is to respect and accommodate everyone's cultural perspectives, this can only go so far, and some things must be unequivocally rejected. (And in many cases, are rejected; for example, the consumption of dogs, cats and parts of endangered animals is all part of Chinese culture, but that is unlikely to be considered acceptable in the West, ever.)
I'll return to the topic of Islam. As I stated earlier, I agree with Razib that Muslim immigrants present a greater challenge to the fabric of society than other immigrant groups. Yet it is essential to distinguish between moderate and hardline here. The great majority of Muslims in the West are moderate and fit in without any major problems. Moderate Muslims realise that certain aspects of their religion are incompatible with modern life and can be conveniently ignored (in the same way that mainstream Christians don't adhere to the bit in the Bible where it says anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death). But of course, in any religious population there are hardliners, and Muslim hardliners tend to be a whole lot more worrying than Buddhist hardliners or Christian hardliners. Even without taking into account the potential threat of violence, Islam in its stricter interpretations makes it virtually impossible to integrate into a Western society, since it mandates separation from non-Muslims. A sensible government policy creates conditions in which the hardliners are marginalised to the point of insignificance; poor government policy allows hardline ideas to flourish and infect the moderate religious population.
Razib rightly points out that the UK stacks up poorly in this respect, whereas Australia, the US and Canada seem to have done somewhat better. Surveys seem to indicate that young British Muslims are actually more conservative than their parents' generation, and more conservative than their counterparts in the other Anglophone countries. For example, one indicator of extreme views is whether a person believes that apostates (those who abandon Islam) should be punished by death. According to this Pew Research Centre study, 84% of Egyptian Muslims and 76% of Pakistani Muslims agree with this, whereas in Turkey, Lebanon and Indonesia this was the view of only 5%, 6% and 30% respectively. Yet amongst British Muslims aged 16-24, according to this article, 36% believe in the death penalty for apostasy. 13% of young British Muslims expressed support for Al-Qaeda, compared to only 5% in Turkey. (I'm not saying I put total faith in these surveys - the figure for Indonesia seems high to me - but that's what we have to work with.) In other words, despite their proximity to Western liberal values which emphasise freedom and tolerance for diversity, Britain is breeding a generation of young Muslims that is more extreme than numerous countries which are almost entirely Muslim. It is telling that Umar Abdulmutallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) acquired his extremist mentality not in his native Nigeria, but while studying at University College in London.
If Turkey (99% Muslim) can apparently be so much more progressive and secular than Britain's Islamic community, then it shows that the presence of Muslims does not mean extremism; it is the culture of that society that allows extremism to flourish. I'm not going to proclaim Turkey as any kind of champion of human rights and tolerance, but it has steadfastly maintained a moderate interpretation of Islam which has little room for extremism. So how has Britain managed to nurture a Muslim community where extreme beliefs are allowed to fester?
To an extent it is because Westen countries draw their Muslim migrants from some places with far more medieval attitudes than Turkey. But largely it is because multiculturalism is often too tolerant of intolerance - or at least a certain kind of intolerance. The age of political correctness has rightly turned white people's xenophobia into a taboo, yet it has too often given non-whites (or non-Christians) a free pass. Western governments' tolerance has allowed some mosques to import imams from overseas to preach violent and intolerant versions of Islam, and often thrown in the funding to do it with, all in the name of diversity. In Britain, crazed Islamist activist Anjem Choudry is allowed to publicly endorse terrorism and violence while picking up a social security cheque from the same government he so despises.
I'm firmly in support of a society in which all ethnic groups and religions can intermingle. But that only works if those various groups are prepared to play along. Expecting white Australians to embrace and accept cultural diversity is hollow if migrant groups are patronisingly viewed as exempt from having to be tolerant. Multiculturalism as fine with me only so long as it doesn't forget this.
Monday, 28 February 2011
The bloke from the anti-Asian party and his Asian wife
I wonder if this guy has ever uttered the phrase, "I'm not racist - my wife is Asian." If so, he wouldn't be the first.
* So, does the party who first came to prominence with Pauline Hanson's line "Australia is being swamped by Asians" all of a sudden think Asians are OK?
Perhaps now they've realised that compared to the fear they have of Muslims, Asians aren't really all that threatening anymore.
* Would Nelson be mocked as a "dirty old man" if he had a 50 year-old white wife? Almost certainly not. So why the double standard? Well, it has to be said... the combination of older white man and younger South East Asian woman is one that always raises an eyebrow or two. It just has strong colonialist overtones, and too often seems to feature a imbalance of power in the relationship. It's that stereotype of the ageing white guy who prefers the "submissive" Asian woman who "understands her place" better than white women, and "knows how to treat a man properly".
The director of One Nation in Queensland has an Asian wife.It shouldn't be a curiosity, and wouldn't be, but this is the party whose founder made her first contribution to federal politics by warning that Australia was in danger of being "swamped by Asians".Just months after Pauline Hanson's 1996 speech, Sansanee Nelson, the wife of One Nation's now-Queensland director Ian Nelson, left Thailand for a new life in Australia.The couple hasn't had an easy road, and it's becoming a lot harder as Mr Nelson tries to breathe new life into the dormant party.It's not the word "Asian" in the first sentence that's provocative - it's the words "One Nation".One Nation Queensland was deregistered in November 2009, as its membership had fallen below the 500 required.
It's preparing to re-launch before the next state election, meaning Queenslanders will be seeing more of Mr Nelson before March 2012.
And if Sansanee, or their daughter Patti, join him on the hustings, voters could be forgiven if they do a double take.
As an aircraft mechanic, Nelson has lived around the world, including in Thailand, where he met his second wife. Like most new Australians, it took Sansanee time to find work because of her limited English.But she persevered, with the encouragement of her husband, and now works in a restaurant while presiding over the family's neat home and garden north of Brisbane. Despite witnessing his wife's difficult adjustment to a new culture and country, Nelson has no sympathy at all for the most recent targets of multiculturalism's critics. For him, the woman he affectionately calls "little one" is not like the other new Australians, particularly Muslims, at the heart of the current national debate."It's the ones that don't [assimilate] and live in their little enclaves that's unacceptable in this country," he said."We've got some wonderful people who are coming into this country. They talk like Australians and they have the barbecues and they assimilate right into Australia. The ones who scare me are the Muslims, they terrify me."His fear seems to stem from a difficult relationship with two Lebanese-Australian apprentices, and the Cronulla riots."They are a race that don't assimilate, they treat Australian women like dirt ... how many were gang raped?" he said of the 2005 violence.But in contrast to his fixed views on Muslim Australians, Nelson is uncertain whether he and Sansanee have personally experienced discrimination. He's even a bit muddled on whether he was offended by Hanson's revulsion of Asians, which surely cast a shadow over Sansanee's first days in Australia."I cringed just a little," he says, before adding: "But we sort of have been since then".People have stopped him in the street and called him a "dirty old man" in reference to what they perceive is the couple's age difference (although Sansanee is 50 years old).Mr Nelson says the party is fine with his relationship - its president is married to a Filipino woman - and he doesn't consider whether racism played a part in Sansanee's early employment problems."Nobody would ever admit that was the problem," he said.They say love is blind.As One Nation attempts its comeback in Queensland, Mr Nelson's blinkers, and those of voters, will be tested again.
Full story here.
Now, it's not my place to suggest that Ian Nelson's relationship with his wife Sansanee is anything but loving and genuine. But some questions just have to be asked...
* So, does the party who first came to prominence with Pauline Hanson's line "Australia is being swamped by Asians" all of a sudden think Asians are OK?
Perhaps now they've realised that compared to the fear they have of Muslims, Asians aren't really all that threatening anymore.
* Would Nelson be mocked as a "dirty old man" if he had a 50 year-old white wife? Almost certainly not. So why the double standard? Well, it has to be said... the combination of older white man and younger South East Asian woman is one that always raises an eyebrow or two. It just has strong colonialist overtones, and too often seems to feature a imbalance of power in the relationship. It's that stereotype of the ageing white guy who prefers the "submissive" Asian woman who "understands her place" better than white women, and "knows how to treat a man properly".
I'm not going to suggest that is true of Ian Nelson. Being the product of a WM/AW relationship myself, I'm wary of the stereotypes that sometimes attach to these pairings. But sometimes you still can't help but wonder. That the party's president has a Filipino wife is perhaps telling as well.
* Given that Sansanee had problems finding work and speaking English, she sounds exactly like the kind of immigrant One Nation rails against. Thus, I can't help but think she is recognised as having properly assimilated because she is an attractive Asian woman who married a white man. Which is fine... but it just makes me wonder... would the party be quite so accepting of a Somali migrant named Abdul with poor English and little success in finding work, but who married a white Australian woman?
* Now I know that most couples have their own nauseating pet names for each other. I get that. But was it just me, or did you feel like vomiting upon reading this phrase?
For him, the woman he affectionately calls "little one" is not like the other new Australians
* This is apparently what it means to be Australian:
"They talk like Australians and they have the barbecues and they assimilate right into Australia."
So fire up that barbie, Abdul, start saying "faaak" a lot, and hope for the best.
Friday, 18 February 2011
"The Qu'osby Show"
Aasif Mandvi at The Daily Show sees if a Cosby-style sitcom would work in combating negative stereotypes about Muslims. Cleverness ensues.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Allah in the Family | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
The thorny question of Muslim youth and rape
British former Home Secretary Jack Straw courted controversy this week when he commented on a case of a gang of young men, primarily of Pakistani background, who sexually assaulted a number of white British girls in Derby. He said:
The convicted men were ringleaders Mohammed Liaqat and Abid Saddique (pictured below), as well as Graham Blackham, Mohammad Rehman, Faisal Mehmood, Akshay Kumar, Naweed Liaqat and Farooq Ahmed. They groomed vulnerable teenage girls with drugs and alcohol, then sexually assaulted them. There were 27 victims in all.
Straw's statement predictably met with a flurry of criticism from some quarters, yet also agreement from others. What do you think? Do the South Asian and/or Muslim communities have a problem with rape, particularly towards white women? Is it a racist statement to make? Or is it a serious issue that the cultural Left are too scared to touch?
It's important not to be simplistic here. I have quite a few views on this, not only as the child of a Muslim Asian migrant but also as someone who has worked with many clients who have offended against women, and heard the full spectrum of young men's views about sex and relationships.
You could note that in Cornwall, another gang was very recently convicted of preying on mostly white girls as well. The details were very similar... yet these guys were white. Clearly the primary problem here is of gang culture, and possibly young male culture, rather than Pakistani culture.
However... as an Australian, the case sounds all too familiar. It is chillingly similar to two gang rape cases that shocked Sydney in the early part of the last decade. One was a group of 4 Pakistani brothers ("The K Brothers") and one Nepali who sexually assaulted as many as 18 teenage girls. Another was the 14 young men of Lebanese background led by Bilal Skaf (pictured below) who gang-raped teenage girls at train stations. In the Skaf case, all the girls were "Aussie" (ie. white), and this was specifically mentioned as justification for their treatment. I'm unsure of the ethnicity of the girls in the K brothers case, but there is clear implication that they were not Pakistani.
Why white girls? In the Skaf case, there was clear racism at play. The gang members told one victim "You deserve it because you are Australian." Another was called an "Aussie pig", asked her if "Leb cock tasted better than Aussie cock" and explained to her that she would now be raped "Leb-style". In the case of the Asian gang recently convicted in Derby, there is some evidence of racial abuse. It should be pointed out that while the gang may well have had a prejudiced view of white girls that led to targeting them, I would guess it is largely due to opportunity and availability. White teenage girls, I would assume, are on the whole less conservative than Asian teenage girls and thus more vulnerable to grooming with drugs and alcohol. And with Asian girls there would be a greater chance of retribution from vengeful relatives.
Of course, it is important not to conflate the actions of a twisted few with an entire religion or culture. All three gangs I've discussed here are predominantly made up of Muslims; but are they actually Muslims in anything other than name only? Certainly they came out of a Muslim culture, yet when a sex offender is white, is his religion or ethnicity ever deemed relevant? It's probably safe to say they weren't devout religious people. It must be said that nowhere in Islam does it condone rape, and indeed the Islamic punishment for rape is severe. And I'm quite certain that the incidence of rape in Pakistan is nowhere near as high as that in places like the UK and US.
Yet... culture can give mixed messages. For example: Western male culture, in the main, abhors rape and views rapists as scum. But simultaneously, it promulgates the very attitudes that perpetuate a culture in which rape can thrive. For example, the idea that a promiscuous woman is a slut and thus less worthy of respect; the idea that a man's ability to "score" is reflective of his manhood; the idea that a man should be dominant when it comes to sex and relationships. These attitudes are not taught explicitly, yet most men unconsciously absorb them to some extent.
Those same values are present in all societies, to various degrees. It is worth noting that one of the victims of the K brothers claimed the police didn't take her seriously because she had been drunk, and had implied she was a slut. In South Asia and the Middle East, arguably the most sexually conservative regions in the world, the disdain for promiscuous women is taken to the highest degree, and links in with the so-called "honour killings" that sometimes happen there. (Note: while honour killings do correlate strongly with Islamic cultures, they are absent from much of the Islamic world, such as West Africa and SE Asia. They also occur among Indian Sikhs and Hindus.)
When a man commits a sexual crime, he normally has certain beliefs about himself, the world, and the victim. Foremost among these is that the victim somehow deserves it, and that the perpetrator has some kind of entitlement to do so.
Religious conservatives love to blame the permissiveness and so-called immorality of modern Western culture for the incidence of rape. And while they may have a point, conservative morality can also fuel this kind of behaviour. It is a worldview that sees a sexually free woman as a slut, a whore, and thus someone of degraded morals and worthy of scorn. Such a person is often seen as "deserving" of what fate befalls her. You can see it discussions of rape and in rape trials, when the revealing nature of a victim's clothing is called into question, or likewise their sexual history.
It is generally accepted that Western society is more sexually free than most others; at least to the extent of being more open about it. Australia has a female PM living in a de facto relationship and no one bats an eyelid. Celebrities sexual exploits are popular tabloid fodder, and magazines dispense sexual advice to male and female alike. You could say that there is plenty of pre-marital sex happening in various non-Western societies, but the difference is that there still remains an "official" cultural stance that such behaviour is frowned upon.
When migrants come to the West, they are almost always more conservative than the mainstream society around them. This often changes, of course. But among many, particularly the more conservative older generation, there remains a prejudice about the young Westerners, particularly Western women. The more emphasis a culture places on chaste behaviour for its young women, the more it tends to view those who step outside these boundaries with distaste.
This is not a universal view among migrants by any means, but it is nonetheless a common phenomenon in virtually every ethnic group. Stick to "our" girls, because "their" girls are a bit, well, slutty.
This sort of attitude can be found to some degree amongst any migrant group, be they Korean, Kenyan or Kazakh. But it must be said that Islamic cultures take it a step further. Islam, with its rigid disapproval of premarital sex, places great emphasis on the tempting nature of women. Thus the need for hijab, covering up women to prevent men harassing them and being led into temptation. Now this might work in a sense, but it also has the effect of giving some men a very juvenile mindset when it comes to temptation. By primarily giving women the responsibility for not encouraging sin, it is easy for men to abdicate their own responsibilities. The idea that male sexuality is so powerful that men themselves cannot control it is common in many cultures, including in the Anglo-Saxon world, but it has achieved greatest currency in the Islamic world.
The distinction between a "good" woman and an "impure" one is made even more clear by clothing and behaviour. A good woman is one who covers her body and behaves properly. One that goes out partying, wears make-up, reveals a bit too much skin, or is perceived to be promiscious - she is impure and immoral, and thus not deserving of the same respect as the "good woman".
Now, in conservative countries where women cover themselves up and behave conservatively, this might work; yet it is still easy for women to be disgraced for relatively innocuous things, such as being seen with a boy. Consider then, the culture clash when someone from these countries arrives in the West and sees women in crop-tops and miniskirts. Most adjust to the new social norms they are faced with, but some cannot shake the view they have grown up with, which divides women up according to their level of moral correctness. And the girls who show off all that skin and go out drinking at bars, in this worldview, do not gain much high regard.
It is widely acknowledged that one of the most shocking incidents of racist violence in Australia's recent history, the Cronulla Riots in late 2005, was a reaction to the behaviour of a group of Lebanese men who routinely harassed blonde women at the beach and frequently called them "Aussie sluts".
Bilal Skaf's father once said that if the girls had been wearing hijab, they wouldn't have been raped.
The excellent British-Pakistani journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, speaking about the current case in Derby, says in this article:
The sort of young men of Muslim backgrounds who commit this sort of crime are certainly not acting out any religious or cultural imperative. Rather, they are cherry-picking whatever cultural influences serve their purposes in the worst way. The rebellious sociopathy of the gang lifestyle; the lure of easy sex and cheap titillation that abounds in Western countries. These things of course are totally at odds with the culture of Pakistan, Lebanon or any other traditional country. Yet by channelling that traditional perspective of female morality, and victimising only those they view as degraded and cheap, it becomes that much easier to justify.
So back to the original comment by Jack Straw. He seems to generalise about Pakistani men, but given the overall context of his statement, I think it's clear he doesn't wish to tar the whole British Pakistani community with the same brush. I actually think he's spot on, and the British Asian community, and certain migrant communities elsewhere in the world, do need to do some soul-searching on this matter. It's one of the nastier consequences of a sadly too-common tendency among some migrant groups: to live in the West, yet view Western culture with distaste. This sort of thinking surely has no bright future.
See also:
Knobhead of the week: Samir Abu Hamza
Was Islamophobia a factor in the wrongful conviction of Farah Jama?
Define "race-based attack"
"Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.
"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.
"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."
Mr Straw added: "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.
"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care... who they think are easy meat.
The convicted men were ringleaders Mohammed Liaqat and Abid Saddique (pictured below), as well as Graham Blackham, Mohammad Rehman, Faisal Mehmood, Akshay Kumar, Naweed Liaqat and Farooq Ahmed. They groomed vulnerable teenage girls with drugs and alcohol, then sexually assaulted them. There were 27 victims in all.
Straw's statement predictably met with a flurry of criticism from some quarters, yet also agreement from others. What do you think? Do the South Asian and/or Muslim communities have a problem with rape, particularly towards white women? Is it a racist statement to make? Or is it a serious issue that the cultural Left are too scared to touch?
It's important not to be simplistic here. I have quite a few views on this, not only as the child of a Muslim Asian migrant but also as someone who has worked with many clients who have offended against women, and heard the full spectrum of young men's views about sex and relationships.
You could note that in Cornwall, another gang was very recently convicted of preying on mostly white girls as well. The details were very similar... yet these guys were white. Clearly the primary problem here is of gang culture, and possibly young male culture, rather than Pakistani culture.
However... as an Australian, the case sounds all too familiar. It is chillingly similar to two gang rape cases that shocked Sydney in the early part of the last decade. One was a group of 4 Pakistani brothers ("The K Brothers") and one Nepali who sexually assaulted as many as 18 teenage girls. Another was the 14 young men of Lebanese background led by Bilal Skaf (pictured below) who gang-raped teenage girls at train stations. In the Skaf case, all the girls were "Aussie" (ie. white), and this was specifically mentioned as justification for their treatment. I'm unsure of the ethnicity of the girls in the K brothers case, but there is clear implication that they were not Pakistani.
Of course, it is important not to conflate the actions of a twisted few with an entire religion or culture. All three gangs I've discussed here are predominantly made up of Muslims; but are they actually Muslims in anything other than name only? Certainly they came out of a Muslim culture, yet when a sex offender is white, is his religion or ethnicity ever deemed relevant? It's probably safe to say they weren't devout religious people. It must be said that nowhere in Islam does it condone rape, and indeed the Islamic punishment for rape is severe. And I'm quite certain that the incidence of rape in Pakistan is nowhere near as high as that in places like the UK and US.
Yet... culture can give mixed messages. For example: Western male culture, in the main, abhors rape and views rapists as scum. But simultaneously, it promulgates the very attitudes that perpetuate a culture in which rape can thrive. For example, the idea that a promiscuous woman is a slut and thus less worthy of respect; the idea that a man's ability to "score" is reflective of his manhood; the idea that a man should be dominant when it comes to sex and relationships. These attitudes are not taught explicitly, yet most men unconsciously absorb them to some extent.
Those same values are present in all societies, to various degrees. It is worth noting that one of the victims of the K brothers claimed the police didn't take her seriously because she had been drunk, and had implied she was a slut. In South Asia and the Middle East, arguably the most sexually conservative regions in the world, the disdain for promiscuous women is taken to the highest degree, and links in with the so-called "honour killings" that sometimes happen there. (Note: while honour killings do correlate strongly with Islamic cultures, they are absent from much of the Islamic world, such as West Africa and SE Asia. They also occur among Indian Sikhs and Hindus.)
When a man commits a sexual crime, he normally has certain beliefs about himself, the world, and the victim. Foremost among these is that the victim somehow deserves it, and that the perpetrator has some kind of entitlement to do so.
Religious conservatives love to blame the permissiveness and so-called immorality of modern Western culture for the incidence of rape. And while they may have a point, conservative morality can also fuel this kind of behaviour. It is a worldview that sees a sexually free woman as a slut, a whore, and thus someone of degraded morals and worthy of scorn. Such a person is often seen as "deserving" of what fate befalls her. You can see it discussions of rape and in rape trials, when the revealing nature of a victim's clothing is called into question, or likewise their sexual history.
It is generally accepted that Western society is more sexually free than most others; at least to the extent of being more open about it. Australia has a female PM living in a de facto relationship and no one bats an eyelid. Celebrities sexual exploits are popular tabloid fodder, and magazines dispense sexual advice to male and female alike. You could say that there is plenty of pre-marital sex happening in various non-Western societies, but the difference is that there still remains an "official" cultural stance that such behaviour is frowned upon.
When migrants come to the West, they are almost always more conservative than the mainstream society around them. This often changes, of course. But among many, particularly the more conservative older generation, there remains a prejudice about the young Westerners, particularly Western women. The more emphasis a culture places on chaste behaviour for its young women, the more it tends to view those who step outside these boundaries with distaste.
This is not a universal view among migrants by any means, but it is nonetheless a common phenomenon in virtually every ethnic group. Stick to "our" girls, because "their" girls are a bit, well, slutty.
This sort of attitude can be found to some degree amongst any migrant group, be they Korean, Kenyan or Kazakh. But it must be said that Islamic cultures take it a step further. Islam, with its rigid disapproval of premarital sex, places great emphasis on the tempting nature of women. Thus the need for hijab, covering up women to prevent men harassing them and being led into temptation. Now this might work in a sense, but it also has the effect of giving some men a very juvenile mindset when it comes to temptation. By primarily giving women the responsibility for not encouraging sin, it is easy for men to abdicate their own responsibilities. The idea that male sexuality is so powerful that men themselves cannot control it is common in many cultures, including in the Anglo-Saxon world, but it has achieved greatest currency in the Islamic world.
The distinction between a "good" woman and an "impure" one is made even more clear by clothing and behaviour. A good woman is one who covers her body and behaves properly. One that goes out partying, wears make-up, reveals a bit too much skin, or is perceived to be promiscious - she is impure and immoral, and thus not deserving of the same respect as the "good woman".
Now, in conservative countries where women cover themselves up and behave conservatively, this might work; yet it is still easy for women to be disgraced for relatively innocuous things, such as being seen with a boy. Consider then, the culture clash when someone from these countries arrives in the West and sees women in crop-tops and miniskirts. Most adjust to the new social norms they are faced with, but some cannot shake the view they have grown up with, which divides women up according to their level of moral correctness. And the girls who show off all that skin and go out drinking at bars, in this worldview, do not gain much high regard.
It is widely acknowledged that one of the most shocking incidents of racist violence in Australia's recent history, the Cronulla Riots in late 2005, was a reaction to the behaviour of a group of Lebanese men who routinely harassed blonde women at the beach and frequently called them "Aussie sluts".
Bilal Skaf's father once said that if the girls had been wearing hijab, they wouldn't have been raped.
The excellent British-Pakistani journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, speaking about the current case in Derby, says in this article:
Most Asian men do not go around raping young white girls and women; many have happy and equal relationships with white partners. However, an alarming number of Asian individuals, families and communities do believe that white females have no morals, are free and available, deserving of no respect or protection.
Up in Bradford a few years back, I met Muslim pimps, some wearing mini Koran pendants on heavy, gold chains. "Not our girls," they reassured me, "just them white girls from the estates, cheap girls. They love it man, all the money they make! What else will they do with their lives? We're helping them make a career."
Much laughter, until I asked them what they would do if a white pimp groomed their daughters. They would kill the pimp and the girls too, they said. They would too.
The sort of young men of Muslim backgrounds who commit this sort of crime are certainly not acting out any religious or cultural imperative. Rather, they are cherry-picking whatever cultural influences serve their purposes in the worst way. The rebellious sociopathy of the gang lifestyle; the lure of easy sex and cheap titillation that abounds in Western countries. These things of course are totally at odds with the culture of Pakistan, Lebanon or any other traditional country. Yet by channelling that traditional perspective of female morality, and victimising only those they view as degraded and cheap, it becomes that much easier to justify.
So back to the original comment by Jack Straw. He seems to generalise about Pakistani men, but given the overall context of his statement, I think it's clear he doesn't wish to tar the whole British Pakistani community with the same brush. I actually think he's spot on, and the British Asian community, and certain migrant communities elsewhere in the world, do need to do some soul-searching on this matter. It's one of the nastier consequences of a sadly too-common tendency among some migrant groups: to live in the West, yet view Western culture with distaste. This sort of thinking surely has no bright future.
See also:
Knobhead of the week: Samir Abu Hamza
Was Islamophobia a factor in the wrongful conviction of Farah Jama?
Define "race-based attack"
Sunday, 19 December 2010
We can't let schools teach kids anything they don't already know
Ok, now here's a thought: given the amount of stuff in the school curriculum that kids learn that they'll probably never use, how about making it part of their education to learn about the religious traditions of some non-Christian faiths?
Doesn't seem like a particular outrageous concept. After all, given that we live in a fairly diverse society, you don't want your kids to grow up thinking Ramadan is something like a papadam, or thinking Passover is a some kind of ball game.
Or perhaps it is outrageous, judging from this story in Australia's most popular newspaper this week.
Of the 6271 respondents, 87.56% answered No.
Now to understand the reaction to this story, a few contextual factors must be taken into account, including the way the story was presented and who is in it.
Firstly: Keysar Trad is the main Muslim leader quoted, and a large photo of his grinning face accompanies the article. Trad is widely seen as a dodgy individual, and he quite simply is a poor spokesman for Australian Muslims. He routinely attaches himself to questionable causes, and every time I see him interviewed on TV he just exudes every negative stereotype the public has of "the shifty Arab". I'm sure he does some good work somewhere, but if the Muslim community in Australia value good PR, they need to shove this guy right to the back.
Because the paper makes him the primary feature of the article, straight away readers are going to have negative associations. And they managed to find the shiftiest-looking photo of Trad available (although in fairness, that's not hard to do). I wonder why they didn't instead choose the much more benevolent-looking Sherene Hassan? Simple: because one suits the image of Muslims that News Limited wishes to focus on.
One of the fears that seems to resonate through the comments attached to the story, is that this is "the thin end of the wedge"; Muslims are trying to gradually Islamicise Australia by imposing their customs onto everyone's daily life. Now, I don't doubt that there are some in the Muslim community who do have that agenda. Is it really what the majority of Muslims want? I'm not so sure. Is it the underlying agenda of the Muslim leaders quoted in this article? I don't think so. But for a significant section of the public, the entire Muslim ummah is seen as being engaged in a sneaky campaign to turn the world into a giant Caliphate, and this sort of thing fits right into that theory.
The problem is, that in the case of this story, the nature of the messenger obscures the actual issue. It is worth discussing the role of religion in the school system. Shouldn't young people be taught about religion, at least in an anthropological sense? Since it is such an influential factor in the lives of most of the world, should we not have a better understanding of it? For example, what's the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim and a Hindu? I bet at least half of graduating high school students in Australia would struggle to give an answer to that. Now given that Christianity is by far the most widely practiced religion in Australia, it follows that it should be taught in more detail - it is fundamental to understanding the moral and legal basis of Australian society. But likewise, I think it's essential for people to have a basic understanding of what the major religions are about. Should they celebrate all their holidays as part of the school curriculum? Perhaps not, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to learn about them.
The other recurring theme in the comments is that most Muslim states don't teach Christian traditions in their schools, so why should we teach Muslim stuff in ours? Which is sound logic, if you are they kind of person who doesn't think we we strive to be a better society than any other. Hell, why don't we base all our legal principles on what the Saudis do?
I don't want students being proselytised to in the classroom, unless they are attending a specifically religious school. But neither do I like the idea that we should keep religion out of the classroom entirely. Even if religions are mostly a bit nuts, it's still important to understand what they're about. Because, like, school is like, for learning and stuff, innit?
Doesn't seem like a particular outrageous concept. After all, given that we live in a fairly diverse society, you don't want your kids to grow up thinking Ramadan is something like a papadam, or thinking Passover is a some kind of ball game.
Or perhaps it is outrageous, judging from this story in Australia's most popular newspaper this week.
Schools should embrace Ramadan as well as Christmas - Muslim leadersNow what they are suggesting is hardly radical at all, whether you agree with it or not. But check out the tone of almost all the 491 comments attached to the article:
SCHOOLS that celebrate Christmas should also embrace other non-Christian religious festivals, Muslim leaders say.
Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, called on the Victorian Education Department to include the traditions of other religious faiths as part of the formal school curriculum.
"Schools have religious programs - but generally they're elective, they're not compulsory," he said. "To have an awareness of these festivals can be very enriching for all students, including people who go to secular schools."
His comments follow Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu's recent move to protect Christmas celebrations at state schools so that all children can enjoy the "simple pleasures" of the holiday.
Mr Trad called on Mr Baillieu to extend the same level of support to other religions as well. "When the Premier of the state makes a statement in that manner, one can't help but feel that he is giving an official stamp to one religion to the exclusion of the other," he said. "To be a Premier for all Victorians, I look forward to his instructions to schools to teach about the important religious festivals for all faiths."
Mr Trad added that Muslim people should be able to take leave from work during Eid, the three-day holiday that marks the end of Ramadan.
Sherene Hassan, vice-president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, also endorsed the incorporation of Ramadan and other religious festivals in the classroom.
"Conversations about increasing awareness of different cultures and religions are already taking place and have been happening for some time among educators," she said. "The ICV believes this is a positive way of fostering respect between children."
Sheikh Mohamadu Saleem, spokesman for the Australian National Imams' Council, said that schools could hold anything from lessons to full-blown celebrations, depending on the number of pupils of that particular faith.
"Christmas here is celebrated, although the majority of Australians are not Christians but probably consider themselves to be secularists or atheists," he said.
"Exposure to other cultures in a multi-racial country is a good thing, especially in schools."
Mr Baillieu and the Victorian Education Department declined to comment when contacted by the Herald Sun.
Jooles Posted at 12:34 AM December 15, 2010The paper also ran an attached poll, asking "Should schools that celebrate Christmas embrace Ramadan and other non-Christian festivals?"
Nope! Not even remotely interested. Muslims came to MY country, I didn't go to theirs. When THEY embrace our cultures and other religions openly and equally in THEIR countries, then we will do the same. Until then, I'm not interested. In fact, not even then. Who cares about Islam? Not me and not many many people around me.
Comment 1 of 491
Gate-Keeper of Vienna Posted at 12:42 AM December 15, 2010
Inch by inch, creep & creep, push & push....this bunch of supremacists has no interest whatsoever beyond one simple outcome - final and absolute victory. There is no second prize, there can be no compromise of any kind. It is written in their blood-curdling prose - read it yourself.
Comment 9 of 491
Mary K of travelling Oz Posted at 6:35 AM December 15, 2010
We can and should accept and respect other religions but dont need to learn about them.I do not think that imported religions should be able to take time off from work during "Eid". Australia cannot, and shouldn't give them or any other religions the holidays they have during their special time, as they are now living in Australia!
Comment 89 of 491
Preston W. of Rowville Posted at 7:10 AM December 15, 2010
do schools in muslim countries celebrate Christmas? No? Well, if you don't like our way of life you can always try elsewhere!
Comment 117 of 491
Mick Ellis of Narre Warren Posted at 7:11 AM December 15, 2010
How many christians blew themselves up in 2010? How many christians declared war on islam? We celebrate christmas as a time of peace and giving to all. Will islam open thier hearts to non-muslims during ramadan in the same way. I know they won't. I've heard muslims singing the turkish national anthem on Anzac day just to be disrespectful. Islam cannot co-exist peacefully with other religions it's not in there nature. They kill thier own as punishment they will never respect anyone else.
Comment 118 of 491
Aussie of Melbourne Posted at 7:41 AM December 15, 2010
How about, no? If you want to celebrate Ramadan, go to an Islamic country. Simple. It seems people come to Australia to infiltrate it, not because it's a better alternative. "Tradition" is now being branded "discrimination". What a pathetic joke.
Comment 154 of 491
Andrew Posted at 11:59 AM December 15, 2010
What next? Main Kampf in school?
Comment 436 of 491
Of the 6271 respondents, 87.56% answered No.
Now to understand the reaction to this story, a few contextual factors must be taken into account, including the way the story was presented and who is in it.
Firstly: Keysar Trad is the main Muslim leader quoted, and a large photo of his grinning face accompanies the article. Trad is widely seen as a dodgy individual, and he quite simply is a poor spokesman for Australian Muslims. He routinely attaches himself to questionable causes, and every time I see him interviewed on TV he just exudes every negative stereotype the public has of "the shifty Arab". I'm sure he does some good work somewhere, but if the Muslim community in Australia value good PR, they need to shove this guy right to the back.
Because the paper makes him the primary feature of the article, straight away readers are going to have negative associations. And they managed to find the shiftiest-looking photo of Trad available (although in fairness, that's not hard to do). I wonder why they didn't instead choose the much more benevolent-looking Sherene Hassan? Simple: because one suits the image of Muslims that News Limited wishes to focus on.
Secondly: Is this issue one of across-the-board religious tolerance, or is it solely about Islam? Certainly it is being raised by Muslim leaders, but what they suggest encompasses non-Christian religions generally, not just Islam. So the headline, invoking Ramadan, seems to be designed to put a sensationalist spin on the article.
The problem is, that in the case of this story, the nature of the messenger obscures the actual issue. It is worth discussing the role of religion in the school system. Shouldn't young people be taught about religion, at least in an anthropological sense? Since it is such an influential factor in the lives of most of the world, should we not have a better understanding of it? For example, what's the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim and a Hindu? I bet at least half of graduating high school students in Australia would struggle to give an answer to that. Now given that Christianity is by far the most widely practiced religion in Australia, it follows that it should be taught in more detail - it is fundamental to understanding the moral and legal basis of Australian society. But likewise, I think it's essential for people to have a basic understanding of what the major religions are about. Should they celebrate all their holidays as part of the school curriculum? Perhaps not, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to learn about them.
The other recurring theme in the comments is that most Muslim states don't teach Christian traditions in their schools, so why should we teach Muslim stuff in ours? Which is sound logic, if you are they kind of person who doesn't think we we strive to be a better society than any other. Hell, why don't we base all our legal principles on what the Saudis do?
I don't want students being proselytised to in the classroom, unless they are attending a specifically religious school. But neither do I like the idea that we should keep religion out of the classroom entirely. Even if religions are mostly a bit nuts, it's still important to understand what they're about. Because, like, school is like, for learning and stuff, innit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)