Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I rarely agree with Paul Sheehan.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I rarely agree with Paul Sheehan.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...919-266wc.html

    The telling moment in court on Tuesday was when supporters of a young Muslim man charged with affray during a demonstration in Sydney on Saturday stayed in their seats when the magistrate entered the court. It was an act of disrespect for Australian law. These men respect sharia. They want to live under the caliphate of Islam.

    Instead, they inhabit the caliphate of the mind. They are members of a strand of Muslim fundamentalists who live in the West and exploit the West while despising the West.

    To justify their own hypocrisy of not living under Sharia, they exist in a permanent twilight of victimhood. Thus it was inevitable Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, the organisation at the heart of Saturday's flash of religious hatred, issued a statement yesterday that was a classic of blame-shifting and victimology:

    ''We affirm that primary responsibility for what occurred [the violence] lies squarely on the powerful institutions of society, media and the political establishment in particular, which continually attack Islam and Muslims, creating the grievances that give rise to such incidents, isolating youth, and causing social tension.''

    This passive-aggressive self-pity is used to justify cultural bigotry, religious intolerance and gratuitous violence.

    A defender of this belligerent narcissism was published on these pages yesterday - a doctoral student at the University of Melbourne, Mohamad Tabbaa, who, his biography said, ''researches issues of discrimination against Muslim minority groups in the West, particularly Australia''.

    This is classic victimology. Any grudge jockey who wants to look for discrimination is going to find it. No problem. Given Tabbaa's focus on Muslims as victims, it is likely he will avert his gaze from the greatest source of intolerance involving Muslims in Australia, which is intolerance by Muslims. I could point him to hundreds of pages of examples of bastardry by Muslims living in this country.

    He certainly averted his gaze from inconvenient facts in his opinion piece. In justifying the violent conduct and sympathy for jihad exhibited by scores of demonstrators, Tabbaa offers this chilling rationalisation:

    ''To begin with, many Muslims in Australia do not simply give up their identity as belonging to a global community merely because they happen to live in Australia. Many have not bought the liberal idea of individualism, and so see events happening on the other side of the planet as personally related to them.''

    We already got that. We get that ''many Muslims'' don't identify with being Australian as their primary identity. We get the rejection of liberalism.

    He offered a list of grievances which offend those who inhabit the caliphate of the mind, the oppression of Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma, China, the Palestinian territories, Kashmir, Guantanamo Bay and Chechnya.

    The problem with this list is that it ignores the central reality of the oppression of Muslims: the overwhelming amount of oppression of Muslims is by Muslims.

    Yes, millions of Muslims have been murdered, assassinated, attacked, sexually assaulted, intimidated and otherwise silenced in the past year. And the year before that. And the year before that. That is because right now, Muslims are attacking and killing other Muslims in Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Mali, Indonesia, Yemen, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. Muslims are also attacking or intimidating Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria and Syria. Right now, in several European countries with large Muslim immigrant populations, Muslims are well overrepresented in prisons.

    All this is airbrushed out of the narrative of Muslim victimology by the nebulous accusation of ''Islamophobia'' in the West.

    Nonsense. The broader context of life for Muslims in Australia is that they enjoy a verifiable and generous accommodation of their needs. They make up a significant proportion of the immigrant stream. They are significantly overrepresented among those granted refugee or asylum status, and also among those who receive welfare benefits. They enjoy religious freedom, democracy and free speech in ways most Muslims, under the governance of Muslims, do not. Very few cases of hate crimes against Muslims have been seen in the Australian courts.

    That did not stop Tabbaa and others in recent days from heaping scorn on Muslim leaders who build bridges to the wider community. He ironically mocked leaders who condemned Saturday's violent stupidity as ''superheroes''. Yet his own alternative melted into vague waffle and platitudes.

    The Islamophobia whine has been flogged to death. It's become self-parody.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But in regards to Muslims playing the victim card he is correct, the only thing he fails to mention is Muslims are not alone. Israel play the victim card consistently and expect everyone to swallow it.

    I hold all religions in the same light. I do not differentiate between them as they are all self-serving, bigoted, insular, power hungry organisations that crave control and influence over their followers rather than serving their followers as they claim to do.

    What I am becoming pissed off at is Islams and Muslims disrespect. Disrespect for our laws, disrespect for our courts, for our freedom to take the piss out of their imaginary friend. While Muslims have a right to practice and believe in Islam, I have a right not too! And if I want to exercise that right by wearing a T shirt that depicts Muhammad as pig rooting drunken bogan, that I farking well can as I don't live under Sharia law!

    Chook.

  • #2
    great article , rings so true..thanks chook

    Comment


    • #3
      Chook, I agree with many things here but until anyone gives me a real answer as to why Australian troops have been engaged in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, I refuse to deny these people a right to voice their objections in this country. One issue I have is the treatment of POW's. There are international laws regarding the treatment of POW's, and yet we are seeing Muslims locked up and tortured on suspicion all over the world, when really all they are doing is defending their homeland which is something everyone of us is expected to do. Except we are at war with a Country that did not attack us in any way. How can we say we are defending our homeland? My point is that when my Muslim friends bring these issues up, I have no response. They feel that their lives are not worth as much as ours. They feel that those human rights laws do not apply to them because they are not thought of as humans. Think about it. How would you feel. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
      Another reason why these laws should be adhered to is if an Australian soldier is captured, the only thing protecting that soldier are indeed those laws. So my question stands. Julia talks about completing our mission in Afghanistan. What is our mission in Afghanistan?
      ps. The last person we should be listening to regarding these matters is a billionaire businessman. Frank Lowy's opinion will always be guided by his love for money and most times it works against the general good of the community.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Eggfather View Post
        Chook, I agree with many things here but until anyone gives me a real answer as to why Australian troops have been engaged in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, I refuse to deny these people a right to voice their objections in this country. One issue I have is the treatment of POW's. There are international laws regarding the treatment of POW's, and yet we are seeing Muslims locked up and tortured on suspicion all over the world, when really all they are doing is defending their homeland which is something everyone of us is expected to do. Except we are at war with a Country that did not attack us in any way. How can we say we are defending our homeland? My point is that when my Muslim friends bring these issues up, I have no response. They feel that their lives are not worth as much as ours. They feel that those human rights laws do not apply to them because they are not thought of as humans. Think about it. How would you feel. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
        Another reason why these laws should be adhered to is if an Australian soldier is captured, the only thing protecting that soldier are indeed those laws. So my question stands. Julia talks about completing our mission in Afghanistan. What is our mission in Afghanistan?
        ps. The last person we should be listening to regarding these matters is a billionaire businessman. Frank Lowy's opinion will always be guided by his love for money and most times it works against the general good of the community.
        To answer your question why we are in Afganistan? We are beholden to the yanks by both our major political parties and as such we follow them blindly into each and every conflict they bring onto themselves. That's the only reason we are there or in Iraq.

        As to the treatment of Muslims, I agree they are treated like second class citizens in many countries...mostly by other Muslims. How the yanks treat Muslims at Gitmo is reprehensible, but it pails in comparison of how Muslims treat other Muslims.

        Which brings me back to those Muslims in Australia. We do not torture them. We do not imprison them. Nor treat them any differently to any other religion or people and as such they have absolutely no right to behave any differently to that expected of any other religion or people.

        Regardless of what they think or what is written in the Koran, Muslims are not special! And nor should they be afforded any special privilages as a resullt of being Muslim. Yet they demand everyone adhere to their beliefs of not paroding the prophet Muhammad. Sorry, but as I said earlier if I wish to wear a T shirt paroding the prophet, than I can and will as I am not subject to Islamic law or beliefs and THAT is what many Muslims fail to realise or understand.

        Chook.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm going to temper my response to this.

          Religion is not and never has been the problem. Radical religion is the problem and specifically radical Islam is the problem. Just like radical Judaism in the form of the Zionists is the problem. Just like cults like Marshall Applewhite's Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones' cult members and the Japanese Aum Supreme Truth are the problem.

          If you convince a person that they is doing a great service in the guise of giving their all to a deity then they will gladly kill and/or die for you. Which is why the majority of suicide bombers are young, disaffected and downtrodden youth.

          You very rarely if ever see an old Muslim leader blowing themselves up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by John View Post
            I'm going to temper my response to this.

            Religion is not and never has been the problem. Radical religion is the problem and specifically radical Islam is the problem. Just like radical Judaism in the form of the Zionists is the problem. Just like cults like Marshall Applewhite's Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones' cult members and the Japanese Aum Supreme Truth are the problem.

            If you convince a person that they is doing a great service in the guise of giving their all to a deity then they will gladly kill and/or die for you. Which is why the majority of suicide bombers are young, disaffected and downtrodden youth.

            You very rarely if ever see an old Muslim leader blowing themselves up.
            "You very rarely if ever see an old Muslim leader blowing themselves up." Thats because he hasn't already.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Chook View Post
              What I am becoming pissed off at is Islams and Muslims disrespect. Disrespect for our laws, disrespect for our courts, for our freedom to take the piss out of their imaginary friend. While Muslims have a right to practice and believe in Islam, I have a right not too! And if I want to exercise that right by wearing a T shirt that depicts Muhammad as pig rooting drunken bogan, that I farking well can as I don't live under Sharia law!

              Chook.
              I may not agree with your idea of fashion but I agree wholeheartedly with that.

              Not that I would do it. That would be antagonistic to a group of people (small they may be) that have no self control.

              Comment


              • #8
                http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/muslim...924-26ggq.html

                •Police baited anti-Islamic protesters, say bookshop staff

                The usual quiet of the streets of Piara Waters in Perth was abruptly broken the weekend before last. Five hundred teenage partygoers, gathering in response to a party advertised on social media, went out of control, hurling rocks, bottles and bricks at police.

                Reinforcements including mounted police, the dog squad and police helicopter were summoned in an attempt to disperse the crowd. A 19-year-old was stabbed and an ambulance that came to assist the injured had its window smashed.

                The Perth incident is evidently quite similar, if not worse, than the Sydney protest as far as objective facts go, and it occurred on the very same night. Yet it has been treated very differently.

                It received nowhere near as much media coverage. It was not dubbed the "Perth riots". Politicians did not fall over one another to condemn the violence. Federal Parliament did not see a need to raise the issue in question time and forward bipartisan condemnation. Parents and community leaders in Piara Waters were not asked to condemn the behaviour, nor did they themselves go out of their way offer to apologies or to condemn the violence.

                Why the difference?

                Much has been said about the protest in Sydney. It is instructive for us to separate the objective reality from the subjective coverage and commentary.

                Objectively, protesters angry about a given matter clashing with police is not an uncommon phenomenon in Australia. We have seen it time and again. We saw it in the Occupy protests in Sydney and Melbourne. We saw it very recently at union protests in Melbourne.

                In terms of the subjective response, it is uncommon that an entire community be held responsible and asked to apologise or condemn. It is uncommon for the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, Foreign Minister, Premier and other high-ranking politicians all to weigh in on the matter. It is uncommon for the matter to be raised in Federal Parliament. It is uncommon for the incident to be headline news for an entire week. And it is certainly uncommon for all of this to occur together.

                Yet this is precisely what the response to the Sydney protest has been.

                The reason for this is clear. The political establishment and the mainstream media adopt a different standard when dealing with Islam and Muslims. Their demonisation of Islam and all things Islamic has been persistent for a long time now, and quite evident in the past decade.

                Thus, what makes the Sydney protest different, in the eyes of media and politicians, is not the violence but that the protesters were Muslim, and that the protest finds its context in the overarching reality of Islam-West tensions.

                In this respect the insulting film is merely a trigger and the latest manifestation of a persistent Western aggression against Islam and Muslims. An attack defined by the likes of the unjust invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, decades of Western support for dictators in the Middle East and North Africa, and decades of economic and political subjugation and exploitation of Muslim lands.

                From drone strikes in Pakistan, to soldiers burning copies of the Koran in Afghanistan, to torture by rendition, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Baghram airbase; the list is as long as it is ugly. Yet some still ask why Muslim anger around the world is targeting the US?

                When this context is mentioned some respond by the allegation that we are justifying the violence. This is cheap tactic to avoid addressing the real issues. We have been clear on the point that we do not condone violent protest.

                Yes, we do not condemn the protesters. We uphold the presumption of innocence. Not because we condone violence, but because it is against all principles to judge people as guilty without all the facts being clear. All the witness accounts I have heard, and some media reports, suggest significant police provocation. What is the reality? Time will tell. Until then, media trials and sensational coverage is not a valid basis on which to condemn people.

                Our focus should be on the real underlying issues. It is easy to scapegoat individuals for the deep social frays of a society. It is much harder to hold the powerful institutions – media and political establishment – to account for creating the environment that gives rise to and facilitates social tension.

                If we continue down this path of turning a blind eye or providing hollow justifications to those who inflict the worst types of violence on entire nations such as Afghanistan while getting all worked up about clashes in Sydney that pale in comparison, then we can only expect the situation to get worse, to the detriment of everyone.

                Uthman Badar is the spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia, an Islamic political party that is dedicated to the unification of the Muslim world under Islamic law.
                __________________________________________________ __

                A retort...of sorts.

                Chook.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Chook View Post
                  http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/muslim...924-26ggq.html

                  •Police baited anti-Islamic protesters, say bookshop staff

                  The usual quiet of the streets of Piara Waters in Perth was abruptly broken the weekend before last. Five hundred teenage partygoers, gathering in response to a party advertised on social media, went out of control, hurling rocks, bottles and bricks at police.

                  Reinforcements including mounted police, the dog squad and police helicopter were summoned in an attempt to disperse the crowd. A 19-year-old was stabbed and an ambulance that came to assist the injured had its window smashed.

                  The Perth incident is evidently quite similar, if not worse, than the Sydney protest as far as objective facts go, and it occurred on the very same night. Yet it has been treated very differently.

                  It received nowhere near as much media coverage. It was not dubbed the "Perth riots". Politicians did not fall over one another to condemn the violence. Federal Parliament did not see a need to raise the issue in question time and forward bipartisan condemnation. Parents and community leaders in Piara Waters were not asked to condemn the behaviour, nor did they themselves go out of their way offer to apologies or to condemn the violence.

                  Why the difference?

                  Much has been said about the protest in Sydney. It is instructive for us to separate the objective reality from the subjective coverage and commentary.

                  Objectively, protesters angry about a given matter clashing with police is not an uncommon phenomenon in Australia. We have seen it time and again. We saw it in the Occupy protests in Sydney and Melbourne. We saw it very recently at union protests in Melbourne.

                  In terms of the subjective response, it is uncommon that an entire community be held responsible and asked to apologise or condemn. It is uncommon for the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, Foreign Minister, Premier and other high-ranking politicians all to weigh in on the matter. It is uncommon for the matter to be raised in Federal Parliament. It is uncommon for the incident to be headline news for an entire week. And it is certainly uncommon for all of this to occur together.

                  Yet this is precisely what the response to the Sydney protest has been.

                  The reason for this is clear. The political establishment and the mainstream media adopt a different standard when dealing with Islam and Muslims. Their demonisation of Islam and all things Islamic has been persistent for a long time now, and quite evident in the past decade.

                  Thus, what makes the Sydney protest different, in the eyes of media and politicians, is not the violence but that the protesters were Muslim, and that the protest finds its context in the overarching reality of Islam-West tensions.

                  In this respect the insulting film is merely a trigger and the latest manifestation of a persistent Western aggression against Islam and Muslims. An attack defined by the likes of the unjust invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, decades of Western support for dictators in the Middle East and North Africa, and decades of economic and political subjugation and exploitation of Muslim lands.

                  From drone strikes in Pakistan, to soldiers burning copies of the Koran in Afghanistan, to torture by rendition, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Baghram airbase; the list is as long as it is ugly. Yet some still ask why Muslim anger around the world is targeting the US?

                  When this context is mentioned some respond by the allegation that we are justifying the violence. This is cheap tactic to avoid addressing the real issues. We have been clear on the point that we do not condone violent protest.

                  Yes, we do not condemn the protesters. We uphold the presumption of innocence. Not because we condone violence, but because it is against all principles to judge people as guilty without all the facts being clear. All the witness accounts I have heard, and some media reports, suggest significant police provocation. What is the reality? Time will tell. Until then, media trials and sensational coverage is not a valid basis on which to condemn people.

                  Our focus should be on the real underlying issues. It is easy to scapegoat individuals for the deep social frays of a society. It is much harder to hold the powerful institutions – media and political establishment – to account for creating the environment that gives rise to and facilitates social tension.

                  If we continue down this path of turning a blind eye or providing hollow justifications to those who inflict the worst types of violence on entire nations such as Afghanistan while getting all worked up about clashes in Sydney that pale in comparison, then we can only expect the situation to get worse, to the detriment of everyone.

                  Uthman Badar is the spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia, an Islamic political party that is dedicated to the unification of the Muslim world under Islamic law.
                  __________________________________________________ __

                  A retort...of sorts.

                  Chook.
                  I can't help but agree with basically everything written there. We all sit on one side or the other, but until we can bring rational debate to these issues we cannot hope to find an appropriate solution. Thanks Chook, for being rational.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I hope everyone has got over the idea that these protests are about a youtube video. That was the Franz Ferdinand moment.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X