This particular episode first aired two years ago, but Milady and I watched it tonight (a recording I made yesterday from the Australia Network). The two young women (click on the link below) lived for two weeks in the other's home and got to experience both the religious and cultural practices of their counterpart's families.
What I found rather interesting was how these two women reacted to their experiences. The Jewish woman was truly a fish out of water, and couldn't wait to drink a beer as soon as she could after leaving. (One wonders what happened to the English language translation of the Qur'an she was given as a parting gift.) The Muslim woman, on the other hand, realized that she felt the most comfortable with traditional, orthodox Islamic beliefs and practices. After her stay with the Jewish family, she felt she was a better Muslim for having gone through the experience.
Holy Switch - Episode 3
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
June 6, 2015
July 19, 2013
February 4, 2011
Tropical Cyclone Yasi
The Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft captured this infrared image of Tropical Cyclone Yasi at 11:11 p.m. EST February 2, 2011 (04:11 UTC). Yasi has moved further inland and is gradually weakening. At 10 p.m. EST Feb. 2, the storm had maximum sustained winds of 60 knots (111 kilometers per hour, or about 70 miles per hour, equivalent to a strong tropical storm. According to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, despite crossing Australia's Great Dividing Range, the system has maintained clear organization, as seen in the AIRS image. The AIRS data show that the storm's cloud tops have warmed substantially and there has been a significant decrease in convection. The storm will continue on its course until dissipation deep in the Australian interior.
Photo credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Note: For earlier satellite images (similar to the one above), see PIA13834: Monster Cyclone Yasi Eyes Australia in NASA Image and PIA13836: Yasi's Fury Rakes Northeastern Australia.
January 8, 2011
January Flooding in Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
On January 7, 2010, the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) instrument on NASA's Terra spacecraft captured this image of the inundated city of Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia. Torrential rains in northeastern Australia caused the Fitzroy River to overflow its banks and flood much of the city and surrounding agricultural lands. Both the airport and major highways are underwater, isolating the city. In this natural color rendition, muddy water is brown, and shallow, clearer water is gray. Vegetation is depicted in various shades of green, and buildings and streets are white. The image is located at 23.3 degrees South latitude, 150.5 degrees East longitude. The image covers an area of 22 by 28.1 kilometers (13.6 by 17.4 miles).
Photo credit: NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team
Update: A newer photo, taken one week after the one above (January 14th), can be found here.
July 21, 2009
Backyard Astronomer Discovers Black Spot on Jupiter
A very cool story out of Australia: an amateur astronomer found a very recent impact scar on Jupiter, near its south pole (the dark spot on the picture to the left). The impact most likely happened sometime in the middle of the night, around midnight, Monday morning; the astronomer, Anthony Wesley, first saw the scar around 1 am, when the planet had rotated the scar into view. The cause of the impact is not known just yet, but was most likely a comet. NASA has confirmed the impact, but is still investigating. Interestingly enough, the impact happened fifteen years after the famous Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacts back in late July 1994.For the whole story, see Backyard astronomer discovers black spot on Jupiter - Times Online.
September 3, 2008
CNN: Dangerous Ground
CNN Int'l showed an excerpt of a longer documentary last night, entitled Dangerous Ground, about the tense relations between Australia's Muslim community vs. the non-Muslim population. Much of the excerpt focused on the feeling of alienation Muslims felt, especially the youth, when faced with the Islamophobic behavior of many Australians.
The documentary highlighted a number of recent incidents, such as the Cronulla riots of December 2005 and the controversial decision last year to deny construction of the Islamic school in the Sydney suburb of Camden. Some of the more level heads presented in the documentary were the Australian police, who are starting to reject the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric in favor of community policing, and the Global Terrorism Research Centre at Monash University, who are recognizing the need for Australian Muslims to remain involved with the greater Australian society.
The problem is that there have been a number of cases where Australian Muslims have faced various barriers, not just by ordinary Australians who may spout Islamophobic and racist speech toward individual Muslims, but by various government bodies who have rejected various Muslim groups' requests: a youth center application being denied, a boxing gymnasium run by a Muslim being told to vacate their premises, and two school applications (one being the Camden school) being denied. The irony and disgust about the last is that one school's application was denied by a town council that, on the same night, also approved the expansion of a local brothel.
Based on my watching of the excerpt, I don't have high hopes for an improvement between non-Muslim Australians and the Muslim community there. The larger problem, IMO, is the racist and xenophobic attitude of the Australian community. I've seen a lot of people argue that Muslims need to become more integrated into the local community, but when the larger community continues to build walls and shut doors in the faces of Muslims, I don't see how integration can be achieved. Non-Muslims need to realize that we're not going away, and that the problem is also theirs.
From the documentary's reporter, Sally Neighbour:
The following two video clips are from the documentary. The first is from CNN; there's a second part, but I was unable to get the proper embedding code from their website.
This video clip was taken from Youtube, which has just this ten-minute excerpt. Hopefully, both of these will give an indication of what the documentary is like.
The entire video can be watched (for a £1 price) here.
Sure, we have racists. If you call it racist, not accepting a community that also happens to... they, they've got terrorists amongst them. OK? We can't say they haven't. They have! If we let 'em in here, they want to be here because they can go on hiding in their country-little farmhouses.
The documentary highlighted a number of recent incidents, such as the Cronulla riots of December 2005 and the controversial decision last year to deny construction of the Islamic school in the Sydney suburb of Camden. Some of the more level heads presented in the documentary were the Australian police, who are starting to reject the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric in favor of community policing, and the Global Terrorism Research Centre at Monash University, who are recognizing the need for Australian Muslims to remain involved with the greater Australian society.
The problem is that there have been a number of cases where Australian Muslims have faced various barriers, not just by ordinary Australians who may spout Islamophobic and racist speech toward individual Muslims, but by various government bodies who have rejected various Muslim groups' requests: a youth center application being denied, a boxing gymnasium run by a Muslim being told to vacate their premises, and two school applications (one being the Camden school) being denied. The irony and disgust about the last is that one school's application was denied by a town council that, on the same night, also approved the expansion of a local brothel.
Based on my watching of the excerpt, I don't have high hopes for an improvement between non-Muslim Australians and the Muslim community there. The larger problem, IMO, is the racist and xenophobic attitude of the Australian community. I've seen a lot of people argue that Muslims need to become more integrated into the local community, but when the larger community continues to build walls and shut doors in the faces of Muslims, I don't see how integration can be achieved. Non-Muslims need to realize that we're not going away, and that the problem is also theirs.
From the documentary's reporter, Sally Neighbour:
We set out to do this story after hearing anecdotal accounts of a rising sense of alienation and resentment among young Australian Muslim men, a result of the fallout from September 11 and the Bali bombings, and the subsequent "war on terror."
Their typical experience is being yelled at in the street: "Go back to where you came from. We don't want you here."
But the fact is 40 percent of Australian Muslims were born here. They have nowhere else to go.
I felt this story was important, not just because everyone deserves to feel at home in the country of their birth, but because I know from my own research on terrorism that alienation is a key factor in the evolution of disillusioned individuals toward terrorism.
The first obstacle we faced in making the program was getting anyone to talk to us. Muslim groups and communities are deeply suspicious and resentful toward the media, which they feel has stigmatised them.
Many groups and individuals we approached refused to co-operate, out of (an often legitimate) fear that they would be typecast as "the bad guys" or potential terrorists.
Thankfully some of them decided it was worth taking the risk, in order to have their say.
Another difficulty was distilling the historic and political complexities of the current global Islamist insurgency into a 45-minute television program. We think the results are revealing and disturbing.
The following two video clips are from the documentary. The first is from CNN; there's a second part, but I was unable to get the proper embedding code from their website.
This video clip was taken from Youtube, which has just this ten-minute excerpt. Hopefully, both of these will give an indication of what the documentary is like.
The entire video can be watched (for a £1 price) here.
June 8, 2008
Movie Sunday: Breaker Morant and Gallipoli
I originally decided to feature the movie Breaker Morant today, but could find only one decent clip. So we'll add a similar movie to go with it, that being Gallipoli.
Whereas the 1902 court-martial of Australian soldiers Lt. Harry 'Breaker' Harbord Morant, Lt. Peter Joseph Handcock, and Lt. George Witton caused Australia to become increasingly resentful of the British military and British rule in general (the Australian army never again accepted British Army justice in cases involving its soldiers), the debacle at Gallipoli is considered the birth of national consciousness in both Australia and New Zealand, bringing about the psychological independence for both countries from British rule.
The final scene in Gallipoli is supposed to be of the Battle of the Nek (Nek being the Afrikaans word for "mountain pass"), which took place on August 7, 1915. The infantry assault by the Australian 3rd Light Horse Brigade was scheduled for 4:30 am, preceded by a naval bombardment of the Turkish machine gun lines that faced the Australians. However, the bombardment ended prematurely, at 4:23 a.m., allowing the Turkish soldiers time to return safely back to their lines prior to the assault, which they now knew was coming:
When Commonwealth burial parties returned to Gallipoli in 1919, the found the bones of the Australians still lying on the battleground. A total of 326 soldiers were buried at the Nek Cemetary, of which only ten (six Australians and four New Zealanders) were identified.
Notes: In the second clip for Gallipoli, the movie proper ends at the 4:05 mark; whoever created this clip left the credits running for the remaining 3:16. You may also notice that "Major Barton" (who gives the pep talk to the soldiers just before they're slaughtered) is actor Bill Hunter, whom we last saw on a Movie Sunday post as "Barry Fife" in Strictly Ballroom.
Whereas the 1902 court-martial of Australian soldiers Lt. Harry 'Breaker' Harbord Morant, Lt. Peter Joseph Handcock, and Lt. George Witton caused Australia to become increasingly resentful of the British military and British rule in general (the Australian army never again accepted British Army justice in cases involving its soldiers), the debacle at Gallipoli is considered the birth of national consciousness in both Australia and New Zealand, bringing about the psychological independence for both countries from British rule.
The final scene in Gallipoli is supposed to be of the Battle of the Nek (Nek being the Afrikaans word for "mountain pass"), which took place on August 7, 1915. The infantry assault by the Australian 3rd Light Horse Brigade was scheduled for 4:30 am, preceded by a naval bombardment of the Turkish machine gun lines that faced the Australians. However, the bombardment ended prematurely, at 4:23 a.m., allowing the Turkish soldiers time to return safely back to their lines prior to the assault, which they now knew was coming:
The first wave of 150 men from the 8th Light Horse Regiment, led by their commander, Lieutenant Colonel A.H. White, "hopped the bags" and went over the top. They were met with a hail of machine gun and rifle fire. A few men reached the Turkish trenches, and marker flags were reportedly seen flying, but they were quickly overwhelmed.
The second wave of 150 followed the first without question and met the same fate. This was the ultimate tragedy of the Nek, that the attack was not halted after the first wave when it was clear that it was futile. A simultaneous attack by the 2nd Light Horse Regiment (1st Light Horse Brigade) at Quinn's Post against the Turkish trench system known as "The Chessboard" was abandoned after 49 out of the 50 men in the first wave became casualties. In this case, the regiment's commander had not gone in the first wave and so was able to make the decision to cancel.
Lieutenant Colonel N.M. Brazier, commander of the 10th Light Horse Regiment, attempted to have the third wave canceled, claiming that "the whole thing was nothing but bloody murder." He was unable to find Colonel Hughes and unable to persuade the brigade major, Colonel J.M. Antill, who believed the reports that marker flags had been sighted. So the third wave attacked and was wiped out. Finally Hughes called off the attack, but confusion in the fire trench led to some of the fourth wave going over.
When Commonwealth burial parties returned to Gallipoli in 1919, the found the bones of the Australians still lying on the battleground. A total of 326 soldiers were buried at the Nek Cemetary, of which only ten (six Australians and four New Zealanders) were identified.
Notes: In the second clip for Gallipoli, the movie proper ends at the 4:05 mark; whoever created this clip left the credits running for the remaining 3:16. You may also notice that "Major Barton" (who gives the pep talk to the soldiers just before they're slaughtered) is actor Bill Hunter, whom we last saw on a Movie Sunday post as "Barry Fife" in Strictly Ballroom.
It really ain't the place nor time to reel off rhyming diction, but yet we'll write a final rhyme while waiting crucifixion. For we bequeath a parting tip of sound advice for such men who come in transport ships to polish off the Dutchman. If you encounter any Boers, you really must not loot 'em, and if you wish to leave these shores, for pity's sake, don't shoot 'em. Let's toss a bumper down our throat before we pass to Heaven, and toast a trim-set petticoat we leave behind in Devon.
Shoot straight, you bastards - don't make a mess of it!
Jack: What are your legs?
Archy Hamilton: Springs. Steel springs.
Jack: What are they going to do?
Archy Hamilton: Hurl me down the track.
Jack: How fast can you run?
Archy Hamilton: As fast as a leopard.
Jack: How fast are you going to run?
Archy Hamilton: As fast as a leopard.
Jack: Then lets see you do it.
The thing I can't stand about you mate is you're always so bloody cheerful.
May 4, 2008
Strictly Ballroom Sunday
This is one of my favorite movies of all time, although Milady groans (very loudly) if I want to watch it. I happened to catch this at the dollar theater a few months after it originally came out (1992) and was completely captivated by it. On my way home the first night I saw it, I stopped by the grocery store where a friend worked and I told him about this wonderful dance movie I had just seen, and he just couldn't get over it. "You went to see a dance movie?" :) Strictly Ballroom works for me on many levels. It's got beautiful music (I love Latin music), beautiful dancing, a lot of humor and a tight plot (it was a stage play in the mid 80s prior to being filmed).
The first video is of Scott and Fran dancing behind the stage curtains to Doris Day's "Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps." The second video is of the final competitive dance between Scott and Fran (filmed at an actual dance competition during the real competition's lunch hour).
The first video is of Scott and Fran dancing behind the stage curtains to Doris Day's "Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps." The second video is of the final competitive dance between Scott and Fran (filmed at an actual dance competition during the real competition's lunch hour).
Liz: What do I want? I'll tell you what I want! I want Ken Railings to walk in here right now, and say 'Pam Short's broken both her legs, and I wanna dance with YOU!'
[the door flies open. It's Ken]
Ken: Pam Short's broken both her legs, and I wanna dance with you.
Kylie: That was unexpected.
A life lived in fear is a life half-lived.
January 7, 2008
Incredible, Uniquely, Sparkling, Bloody Asia
Over the past few weeks, Milady and I have been discussing some of the regional tourism campaigns. The problem, IMO, is that several of these campaigns have rather simple and, thus, boring slogans. The three primary offenders are Incredible India, Korea Sparkling (which is normally said as if there’s a comma between "Korea" and "Sparkling"), and the local slogan, Uniquely Singapore. It’s not that the advertising campaigns are done badly; in fact, all three campaigns are quite professional with decent television commercials. It’s just that the slogans are not terribly interesting.
Two slogans that I find a little better are Malaysia, Truly Asia and Australia’s So Where the Bloody Hell Are You?, which, apparently, had generated some controversy in the UK and Canada; in the UK because of the word "bloody," and in Canada due to the "unbranded alcohol consumption" at the beginning of one of the commercials (and also for the use of the word "hell"). Singapore avoided the problem by having the slogan advertised here as "So where are you?"
There are a couple of countries that don’t advertise regionally, which is a little surprising, namely Indonesia, the Philippines, and Hong Kong. The most recent entrant in the tourism sweepstakes is Vietnam, the Hidden Charm, which, unfortunately, seems to have followed the lead of India, Korea and Singapore with a simplistic slogan.
September 18, 2007
"Mum, Dad & Bruce"
I got this from extended family today via e-mail. I have no idea if the story is really true, but the photo sure does make one think so. ;)
A family was on holiday in Australia for a week and a half when the husband, wife and their 15-year-old son decided to go scuba diving. The husband is in the Navy and has had some scuba experience.
His son wanted to take a pictuere of his mum and dad in all their gear with the underwater camera. As the son was taking the picture, the dad realized that the son looked like he was panicking and gave him the "OK" hand sign to see if he was all right.
The son took the picture and swam back to the boat as quick as he could, with mum and dad following to see if he was OK. When they got back to him he was scrambling onto the boat.
When the parents asked why, he said, "There was a shark behind you!" The dad thought he was joking, but the skipper of the boat said it was true and that they wouldn't believe him if he told them what it was. As soon as the family got back to the hotel they put the picture onto the laptop and this is what they saw:
June 1, 2007
"All we are saying..."
The Economist Intelligence Unit, a division of the corporation that publishes The Economist, has come out with its first annual "Global Peace Index," an index that ranks 121 countries based upon their "peacefulness." One of the irritants I have about certain American Christians and Islamophobes (who are often one and the same) is their claim that the US is sooo peaceful and Muslims are sooo violent. Well, the Global Peace Index exposes the lie behind that claim. Of the 121 countries in this year's index, the US placed 96th, ahead of Iran, but behind Yemen. The most peaceful Muslim country is Oman (22) [see below for a list of the remaining Muslim-majority countries]. Countries of interest: Norway (1), New Zealand (2), Japan (5), Canada (8), Hong Kong (23), Australia (25), Singapore (29), South Korea (32), United Kingdom (49), China (60), India (109), Russia (118), and Israel (119).
The following comes from the press release that describes the objective of the Index and how the Index was created:
Muslim-majority countries: Oman (22), Qatar (30), Malaysia (37), the UAE (38), Tunisia (39), Kuwait (46), Morocco (48), Libya (58), Kazakhstan (61), Bahrain (62), Jordan (63), Egypt (73), Syria (77), Indonesia (78), Bangladesh (86), Saudi Arabia (90), Turkey (92), Yemen (95), Iran (97), Azerbaijan (101), Algeria (107), Uzbekistan (110), Lebanon (114), Pakistan (115), and Iraq (121).
The following comes from the press release that describes the objective of the Index and how the Index was created:
"The objective of the Global Peace Index was to go beyond a crude measure of wars by systematically exploring the texture of peace," explained Global Peace Index President, Mr. Clyde McConaghy, speaking in Washington. "The Index provides a quantitative measure of peacefulness that is comparable over time, and we hope it will inspire and influence world leaders and governments to further action."
The rankings show that even among the G8 countries there are significant differences in peacefulness: While Japan was the most peaceful of the G8 countries, at a rank of five in the Index, Russia neared the bottom at number 118. The Global Peace Index also reveals that countries which had a turbulent time for parts of the twentieth century, such as Ireland and Germany, have emerged as peace leaders in the 21st century.
The Economist Intelligence Unit measured countries' peacefulness based on wide range of indicators - 24 in all - including ease of access to "weapons of minor destruction" (guns, small explosives), military expenditure, local corruption, and the level of respect for human rights.
After compiling the Index, the researchers examined it for patterns in order to identify the "drivers" that make for peaceful societies. They found that peaceful countries often shared high levels of democracy and transparency of government, education and material well-being. While the U.S. possesses many of these characteristics, its ranking was brought down by its engagement in warfare and external conflict, as well as high levels of incarceration and homicide. The U.S.'s rank also suffered due to the large share of military expenditure from its GDP, attributed to its status as one of the world's military-diplomatic powers.
The main findings of the Global Peace Index are:Peace is correlated to indicators such as income, schooling and the level of regional integration Peaceful countries often shared high levels of transparency of government and low corruption Small, stable countries which are part of regional blocs are most likely to get a higher ranking
Muslim-majority countries: Oman (22), Qatar (30), Malaysia (37), the UAE (38), Tunisia (39), Kuwait (46), Morocco (48), Libya (58), Kazakhstan (61), Bahrain (62), Jordan (63), Egypt (73), Syria (77), Indonesia (78), Bangladesh (86), Saudi Arabia (90), Turkey (92), Yemen (95), Iran (97), Azerbaijan (101), Algeria (107), Uzbekistan (110), Lebanon (114), Pakistan (115), and Iraq (121).
March 31, 2007
"Christian Muslims" for Australia
You really gotta wonder about some politicians. Perhaps there should be some sort of test that they need to pass before they're allowed to run for office, so that government wouldn't be filled up with so many clueless people.Pauline Hanson has invented a new religion where Muslims and Christians can pray together.
The former One Nation leader, who is having another tilt at politics, said she was wary of allowing Muslims to settle in Australia.
But she would welcome some Muslims, she said. "There are Christian Muslims - there is no problems about that," she told ABC radio yesterday.
"But if people believe in the way of life under the Koran, that concerns me greatly."
The comment - an apparent reference to Arab Christians - revives memories of her famous "Please explain" gaffe during her early days in Parliament.
In another curious statement, Ms Hanson said Malaysia had been "taken over by Muslims, despite a long history of Islam in that country".
She also said she had no sympathy for confessed terrorist collaborator David Hicks, saying he was "prepared to blow himself up to kill other people".
But there is no suggestion Hicks ever planned to be a suicide bomber.
Despite her apparent confusion, she said she had learnt a lot since her first stint in Parliament. "I think I'm a little bit older, wiser, a lot more mature, and my knowledge of politics is a lot broader," she said.
No doubt, once back in office, Hanson will introduce legislation that makes mathematics easier for schoolchildren by making pi (Ï€) equal to 3.
H/T: Austrolabe
February 10, 2007
Comet McNaught on Australia Day
APOD has a beautiful photograph, taken in Perth, Australia last month. On the left you have a fireworks display in celebration of Australia Day, which is Australia's National Day. On the right you have lightning flashing over the Indian Ocean in the distance. And in the center, small and just showing underneath the clouds is Comet McNaught, which recently passed around the sun.
February 7, 2006
Dr. Juan Cole on "Muslim Protests Against Anti-Muhammad Caricatures"
The following is one of Dr. Juan Cole's posts regarding the offensive cartoons attacking the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This is a very good post, and I believe it deserves wider coverage.
"Of course people are upset when their sacred figures are attacked! But the hurt is magnified many times when the party doing the injuring is first-world, and the injured have a long history of being ruled, oppressed and marginalized. Moreover, most Muslims live in societies with strong traditions of state censorship, so they often assume that if something appears in the press, the government allowed it to do so and is therefore culpable.
"Westerners cannot feel the pain of Muslims in this instance. First, Westerners mostly live in secular societies where religious sentiments have themselves been marginalized. Second, the Muslims honor Moses and Jesus, so there is no symmetry between Christian attacks on Muhammad and Muslim critiques of the West. No Muslim cartoonist would ever lampoon the Jewish and Christian holy figures in sacred history, since Muslims believe in them, too, even if they see them all as human prophets. Third, Westerners have the security of being the first world, with their culture coded as "universal," and widely respected and imitated. Cultures like that of the Muslims in the global South receive far less respect. Finally, societies in the global South are less policed and have less security than in Western Europe or North America, allowing greater space to violent vigilateism, which would just be stopped if it were tried in the industrialized democracies. (Even wearing a t-shirt with the wrong message can get you arrested over here.)
"What Muslims are saying is that depicting Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is insupportable. It is often assumed that in the West we believe in free speech, so there is nothing that is insupportable.
"But that simply is not true. Muslims mind caricatures of Muhammad because they view him as the exemplar of all that is good in human beings. Most Western taboos are instead negative ones, not disallowal of attacks on symbols of goodness but the questioning of symbols of evil.
"Thus, it is insupportable to say that the Nazi ideology was right and to praise Hitler. In Germany if one took that sort of thing too far one would be breaking the law. Even in France, Bernard Lewis was fined for playing down the Armenian holocaust. It is insupportable to say that slavery was right, and if you proclaimed that in the wrong urban neighborhoods, you could count on a violent response.
"So once you admit that there are things that can be said that are insupportable, then the Muslim feelings about the caricatures become one reaction in an entire set of such reactions.
"But you don't have to look far for other issues that would exercise Westerners just as much as attacks on Muhammad do Muslims. In secular societies, a keen concern with race often underlies ideas of social hierarchy. Thus, any act that might bring into question the superiority of so-called white people in their own territory can provoke demonstrations and even violence such as lynchings. Consider the recent Australian race riots, which were in part about keeping the world ordered with whites on top.
"Had the Danish newspaper published antisemitic cartoons that showed, e.g., Moses as an exploitative money lender and brought into question the Holocaust, there would also have been a firestorm of protest. For the secular world, the injuries and unspoken hierarchies of race are what cannot be attacked.
"Muslims are not, as you will be told, the only community that is touchy about attacks on its holy figures or even just ordinary heros. Thousands of Muslims were killed in the early 1990s by enraged Hindus in India over the Ayodhya Mosque, which Hindus insisted was built on the site of a shrine to a Hindu holy figure. No one accuses Hindus in general of being unusually narrowminded and aggressive as a result. Or, the Likudniks in Israel protested the withdrawal from Gaza, and there were dark mutterings about what happened to Rabin recurring in the case of Sharon. The "sacred" principle at stake there is just not one most people in the outsider world would agree with the Likudniks about.
"Human beings are all alike. Where they are distinctive, it comes out of a special set of historical circumstances. The Muslims are protesting this incident vigorously, and consider the caricatures insupportable. We would protest other things, and consider them insupportable."
Dr. Cole also wrote the following comment on his blog:
"I just reiterate in response to some of the critical comments that came in that there are lots of things that if someone said them in public in the United States would cause public outcry, maybe demonstrations and even violence. The mob violence, or threat of it, would be regrettable and wrong, just as it is always wrong everywhere. But it would happen under certain circumstances here, too.
"You should remember that Bill Maher lost his job for comments after September 11, and Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, came out and said we all had to be very careful what we said, and that it was 'never' the time for such comments.
"The American tradition of freedom of speech rooted in the First Amendment really only protects you from the Federal government. You can't even publicly criticize some corporations without risking a lawsuit.
"I agree that it is better that most people in the North Atlantic world no longer are easily mobilized on grounds of religious feeling. But to pretend that Westerners have abolished all their taboos and irrationalities is just hubris. And, some of the protests among Muslims over the caricatures are about wounded nationalism, and not about religion at all."
"Of course people are upset when their sacred figures are attacked! But the hurt is magnified many times when the party doing the injuring is first-world, and the injured have a long history of being ruled, oppressed and marginalized. Moreover, most Muslims live in societies with strong traditions of state censorship, so they often assume that if something appears in the press, the government allowed it to do so and is therefore culpable.
"Westerners cannot feel the pain of Muslims in this instance. First, Westerners mostly live in secular societies where religious sentiments have themselves been marginalized. Second, the Muslims honor Moses and Jesus, so there is no symmetry between Christian attacks on Muhammad and Muslim critiques of the West. No Muslim cartoonist would ever lampoon the Jewish and Christian holy figures in sacred history, since Muslims believe in them, too, even if they see them all as human prophets. Third, Westerners have the security of being the first world, with their culture coded as "universal," and widely respected and imitated. Cultures like that of the Muslims in the global South receive far less respect. Finally, societies in the global South are less policed and have less security than in Western Europe or North America, allowing greater space to violent vigilateism, which would just be stopped if it were tried in the industrialized democracies. (Even wearing a t-shirt with the wrong message can get you arrested over here.)
"What Muslims are saying is that depicting Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is insupportable. It is often assumed that in the West we believe in free speech, so there is nothing that is insupportable.
"But that simply is not true. Muslims mind caricatures of Muhammad because they view him as the exemplar of all that is good in human beings. Most Western taboos are instead negative ones, not disallowal of attacks on symbols of goodness but the questioning of symbols of evil.
"Thus, it is insupportable to say that the Nazi ideology was right and to praise Hitler. In Germany if one took that sort of thing too far one would be breaking the law. Even in France, Bernard Lewis was fined for playing down the Armenian holocaust. It is insupportable to say that slavery was right, and if you proclaimed that in the wrong urban neighborhoods, you could count on a violent response.
"So once you admit that there are things that can be said that are insupportable, then the Muslim feelings about the caricatures become one reaction in an entire set of such reactions.
"But you don't have to look far for other issues that would exercise Westerners just as much as attacks on Muhammad do Muslims. In secular societies, a keen concern with race often underlies ideas of social hierarchy. Thus, any act that might bring into question the superiority of so-called white people in their own territory can provoke demonstrations and even violence such as lynchings. Consider the recent Australian race riots, which were in part about keeping the world ordered with whites on top.
"Had the Danish newspaper published antisemitic cartoons that showed, e.g., Moses as an exploitative money lender and brought into question the Holocaust, there would also have been a firestorm of protest. For the secular world, the injuries and unspoken hierarchies of race are what cannot be attacked.
"Muslims are not, as you will be told, the only community that is touchy about attacks on its holy figures or even just ordinary heros. Thousands of Muslims were killed in the early 1990s by enraged Hindus in India over the Ayodhya Mosque, which Hindus insisted was built on the site of a shrine to a Hindu holy figure. No one accuses Hindus in general of being unusually narrowminded and aggressive as a result. Or, the Likudniks in Israel protested the withdrawal from Gaza, and there were dark mutterings about what happened to Rabin recurring in the case of Sharon. The "sacred" principle at stake there is just not one most people in the outsider world would agree with the Likudniks about.
"Human beings are all alike. Where they are distinctive, it comes out of a special set of historical circumstances. The Muslims are protesting this incident vigorously, and consider the caricatures insupportable. We would protest other things, and consider them insupportable."
Dr. Cole also wrote the following comment on his blog:
"I just reiterate in response to some of the critical comments that came in that there are lots of things that if someone said them in public in the United States would cause public outcry, maybe demonstrations and even violence. The mob violence, or threat of it, would be regrettable and wrong, just as it is always wrong everywhere. But it would happen under certain circumstances here, too.
"You should remember that Bill Maher lost his job for comments after September 11, and Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, came out and said we all had to be very careful what we said, and that it was 'never' the time for such comments.
"The American tradition of freedom of speech rooted in the First Amendment really only protects you from the Federal government. You can't even publicly criticize some corporations without risking a lawsuit.
"I agree that it is better that most people in the North Atlantic world no longer are easily mobilized on grounds of religious feeling. But to pretend that Westerners have abolished all their taboos and irrationalities is just hubris. And, some of the protests among Muslims over the caricatures are about wounded nationalism, and not about religion at all."
October 26, 2005
Islamophobia Down Under
Being American, I normally follow American news with regard to happenings about Islam and Muslims (the CAIR newsletter helps tremendously in that regard). However, I came across the following Australian news story today that, alhamdulillah, was resolved in our favor. What follows are several news stories that chronicle this case of Australian Islamophobia, along with a few of my own comments.
Scarves more rebellion than religion: Lib
Samantha Maiden and Nicola Lipman, The Australian (26 August 2005)
LIBERAL MP Sophie Panopoulos has backed a ban on Muslim girls wearing headscarves to school on the grounds it is "more an act of rebellion" than religion.
Attacking "politically correct" orthodoxy that a ban should not be debated, Ms Panopoulos said girls attending school in Australia should wear the official school uniform.
"For a lot of younger people it seems to be more an act of rebellion than anything," she said yesterday.
Hmmm, perhaps you would wear a hijab for rebellious reasons as it seems like that's the nature of your personality. However, just because you think that's so doesn't make it so. In fact, I suspect that you don't know anything about how Muslim women think regarding hijab because, if you did, you wouldn't have made any of these silly comments.
"My personal view is I would put a ban on those headscarves, as governments have overseas. That's up to individual schools and state governments but if a school has a uniform that's pretty much it."
Her comments sparked a sharp reaction last night from Sydney's Minaret College principal Mohamed Hassan, where students and staff are required to wear the hijab. "If you go to any beach, you will see people who are almost naked, and nobody tries to make a law about that," he said. "So you have the right to be almost naked but not the right to keep yourself covered?"
Great riposte, brother!
Sydney's Lakemba Public School students Katelyn Hamilton, 11, and her twin Courtney said they proudly wore the headscarves "for our religion". "We should be able to wear them to school. I like wearing it," Katelyn said.
Courtney said: "We wear it so you can tell Muslims apart from other religions. Our God says it's the right thing to do."
Mariam Basheti, 9, who attends Rissalah College, also rejected suggestions that young girls wore it as an act of rebellion against Western culture.
"No, I wear it for the sake of my God, Allah," she said.
Ali Roude, principal of Rissalah College in Lakemba, was one of 14 Muslim leaders invited to meet John Howard in Canberra on Tuesday. He said the right of women and girls to wear the hijab was raised at the meeting.
"I mentioned this to the Prime Minister," Mr Roude said. "If we are talking about tolerance, freedom, Australian values, then we are talking about the right to wear what you want, including the hijab."
Opposition education spokesman Jenny Macklin said yesterday that the ALP would not support a ban, describing the proposal as "extreme".
"There is no place for extremism in Australian society and Sophie Panopoulos's extreme comments are at odds with important Australian values such as tolerance and respect," Ms Macklin said. Education Minister Brendan Nelson told The Australian last night he did not back a ban on Muslim headscarves in Australian schools as long as students' dress was compatible with the school uniform.
"I strongly defend the right of Islamic students, female students, to wear dress to their schools ... which comply with their religious convictions," he said.
Alhamdulillah. May Allah (swt) bless you for this.
Headscarves deny women rights: MP
Patricia Karvelas, The Australian (6 September 2005)
VICTORIAN Liberal MP Sophie Panopoulos has described Muslim women's headscarves as an "uncompromising retrograde curtailment of women's rights".
In a speech to parliament, she defended her recent call to ban Muslim girls wearing headscarves to school, arguing the hijab oppresses women.
No, you're suppressing women who want to dress as they feel is appropriate. Who gave you the right to decide how people dress?
"Why should one section of the community be stuck in the Dark Ages of compliance cloaked under the veil of some distorted form of religious freedom?" Ms Panopoulos said.
Oh, so then you admit that women have the religious freedom to wear hijab if they so choose! So why are you butting into a decision-making process that doesn't pertain to you? Is this "white woman's burden?"
She said it was wrong to compare the hijab to turbans or nun's habits, as her critics had.
"What's not mentioned is that none of these other articles represent the uncompromising retrograde curtailment of women's rights, as does the hijab.
Of course she's not going to like a comparison between hijab and a turban because men wear turbans and that's irrelevant to a feminist. She doesn't like a comparison between hijab and a habit because almost all Christian women who wear a habit are Catholic nuns, and they, of course, have segregated themselves from mainstream society and are few in number, so why should she care? But a hijab, now, that's a problem for a feminist like this woman, because lots and lots of Muslim women wear hijab, and that goes against feminist dogma! Muslim hijabis show an alternative way of life to everyday, ordinary women. Horrors!
"When a suggestion is made to remove from state schools a symbol of what is essentially, as one commentator puts it, 'sexual apartheid', the Labor sisterhood and the left-wing women's movement cry foul.
Hmmm, "sexual apartheid" vs. sexual decadence. I'll go with the so-called apartheid. So do millions of women around the world.
"As a female MP, I am concerned about women's rights in this country. There are those who subscribe to a belief system that devalues and degrades women, that accepts a legal system that would relegate women back to the Dark Ages."
She also warned against the emergence of a frightening "Islamic class" in Australia, supported by a "perverse interpretation of the Koran".
Thus speaketh the bigot who hath probably never read the Qur'an...or knows anything about Islam. Ignorance must be bliss.
Bishop's Comments of Hijab Un-Australian: Apology Demanded
Muslim Women's groups and Civil Rights groups have condemned suggestions by Bronwyn Bishop that the hijab should be banned in schools.
"Her likening of Muslim girls to slaves and Nazis demonstrate a complete ignorance of even basic Islamic teachings," said Ms Maha Abdo, spokeswoman for the Muslim Women's Association. "It is insulting, inflammatory and contrary to everything that the Prime Minister has said about respect for difference and religious tolerance. We are appalled and offended that Ms Bishop would compare Muslim Women to slaves or our religion to Nazism. We demand an unequivocal apology."
White woman's burden once more... After reading Ms. Bishop's biography, these comments sound like a last gasp from a fading politician, clinging to any radical position as long as it can secure her a few more votes.
"Ms Bishop's statements have achieved nothing other than inciting hatred and distrust of Muslims generally and Muslim women in particular, especially at a time when our elected representatives should be playing a role in uniting rather than dividing the community."
"Bishop's argument is Swiss cheese -- it's full of holes," adds Agnes Chong, co-convenor of the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network (AMCRAN). "On the one hand Ms Bishop claims it's a type of slavery, then she claims it's an act of defiance -- it can't be both. The argument itself is tainted with racist overtones, and assumes Muslim women are weak and not fully intellectually developed. We can assure her that this is absolutely not the case.
"Australia is about freedom and tolerance, and this shows neither. It is unAustralian to prohibit the free exercise of any religion. In fact, it is one of the few rights enshrined in the Australian Constitution."
We call upon the Prime Minister Mr John Howard to take on a leading role in this debate and openly condemn the statements of Ms Bishop. We urge Mr Howard to make it clear that neither he nor the Australian government hold such views nor would they consider any laws which infringe upon the rights of Muslim women in their choice of dress.
Have you noticed by now how these Australian politicians don't practice the Australian values they supposedly represent? Or is it that these two women, Panopoulos and Bishop, don't have any values (or retrograde values at best)?
Now, the good news:
Howard Opposes Bishop's Call For Ban On Headscarves
by Justin Norrie, The Sydney Morning Herald (29 August 2005)
Mr Howard [Prime Minister of Australia] said he opposed Mrs Bishop's push to ban Muslim girls from wearing headscarves at public schools because it would be impractical. But he defended Ms Bishop's "right to express a view".
Mrs Bishop has called the headscarf "a sort of iconic item of defiance", and echoed the call of the Victorian Liberal MP Sophie Panopoulos for a ban. Mrs Bishop's remark prompted much criticism, including a rebuke from the NSW Minister for Education, Carmel Tebbutt, who yesterday ruled out any change to the uniform policy, which allows schools to develop a dress code in consultation with the community. She said she supported the right of students to wear the headscarf as long as it was within the school code.
Mr Howard said: "I don't think it's practical to bring in such a prohibition. If you ban a headscarf you might for consistency's sake have to ban a yarmulke or a turban."
He said he could understand why "people might be affronted by a full coverage including the face. I don't think that is desirable."
However, Labor's education spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin, said Mr Howard had not gone far enough in opposing the MPs. "John Howard must show leadership and pull [them] into line over their calls. We need national leadership … not extremist knee-jerk reactions."
The federal Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, John Cobb, said Mrs Bishop's comments were ignorant and an insult to many Australians. In a statement he said: "The government does not seek to impose cultural sameness on Australians … Do we ban nuns from wearing a habit?"
Emphasis mine.
Scarves more rebellion than religion: Lib
Samantha Maiden and Nicola Lipman, The Australian (26 August 2005)
LIBERAL MP Sophie Panopoulos has backed a ban on Muslim girls wearing headscarves to school on the grounds it is "more an act of rebellion" than religion.
Attacking "politically correct" orthodoxy that a ban should not be debated, Ms Panopoulos said girls attending school in Australia should wear the official school uniform.
"For a lot of younger people it seems to be more an act of rebellion than anything," she said yesterday.
Hmmm, perhaps you would wear a hijab for rebellious reasons as it seems like that's the nature of your personality. However, just because you think that's so doesn't make it so. In fact, I suspect that you don't know anything about how Muslim women think regarding hijab because, if you did, you wouldn't have made any of these silly comments.
"My personal view is I would put a ban on those headscarves, as governments have overseas. That's up to individual schools and state governments but if a school has a uniform that's pretty much it."
Her comments sparked a sharp reaction last night from Sydney's Minaret College principal Mohamed Hassan, where students and staff are required to wear the hijab. "If you go to any beach, you will see people who are almost naked, and nobody tries to make a law about that," he said. "So you have the right to be almost naked but not the right to keep yourself covered?"
Great riposte, brother!
Sydney's Lakemba Public School students Katelyn Hamilton, 11, and her twin Courtney said they proudly wore the headscarves "for our religion". "We should be able to wear them to school. I like wearing it," Katelyn said.
Courtney said: "We wear it so you can tell Muslims apart from other religions. Our God says it's the right thing to do."
Mariam Basheti, 9, who attends Rissalah College, also rejected suggestions that young girls wore it as an act of rebellion against Western culture.
"No, I wear it for the sake of my God, Allah," she said.
Ali Roude, principal of Rissalah College in Lakemba, was one of 14 Muslim leaders invited to meet John Howard in Canberra on Tuesday. He said the right of women and girls to wear the hijab was raised at the meeting.
"I mentioned this to the Prime Minister," Mr Roude said. "If we are talking about tolerance, freedom, Australian values, then we are talking about the right to wear what you want, including the hijab."
Opposition education spokesman Jenny Macklin said yesterday that the ALP would not support a ban, describing the proposal as "extreme".
"There is no place for extremism in Australian society and Sophie Panopoulos's extreme comments are at odds with important Australian values such as tolerance and respect," Ms Macklin said. Education Minister Brendan Nelson told The Australian last night he did not back a ban on Muslim headscarves in Australian schools as long as students' dress was compatible with the school uniform.
"I strongly defend the right of Islamic students, female students, to wear dress to their schools ... which comply with their religious convictions," he said.
Alhamdulillah. May Allah (swt) bless you for this.
Headscarves deny women rights: MP
Patricia Karvelas, The Australian (6 September 2005)
VICTORIAN Liberal MP Sophie Panopoulos has described Muslim women's headscarves as an "uncompromising retrograde curtailment of women's rights".
In a speech to parliament, she defended her recent call to ban Muslim girls wearing headscarves to school, arguing the hijab oppresses women.
No, you're suppressing women who want to dress as they feel is appropriate. Who gave you the right to decide how people dress?
"Why should one section of the community be stuck in the Dark Ages of compliance cloaked under the veil of some distorted form of religious freedom?" Ms Panopoulos said.
Oh, so then you admit that women have the religious freedom to wear hijab if they so choose! So why are you butting into a decision-making process that doesn't pertain to you? Is this "white woman's burden?"
She said it was wrong to compare the hijab to turbans or nun's habits, as her critics had.
"What's not mentioned is that none of these other articles represent the uncompromising retrograde curtailment of women's rights, as does the hijab.
Of course she's not going to like a comparison between hijab and a turban because men wear turbans and that's irrelevant to a feminist. She doesn't like a comparison between hijab and a habit because almost all Christian women who wear a habit are Catholic nuns, and they, of course, have segregated themselves from mainstream society and are few in number, so why should she care? But a hijab, now, that's a problem for a feminist like this woman, because lots and lots of Muslim women wear hijab, and that goes against feminist dogma! Muslim hijabis show an alternative way of life to everyday, ordinary women. Horrors!
"When a suggestion is made to remove from state schools a symbol of what is essentially, as one commentator puts it, 'sexual apartheid', the Labor sisterhood and the left-wing women's movement cry foul.
Hmmm, "sexual apartheid" vs. sexual decadence. I'll go with the so-called apartheid. So do millions of women around the world.
"As a female MP, I am concerned about women's rights in this country. There are those who subscribe to a belief system that devalues and degrades women, that accepts a legal system that would relegate women back to the Dark Ages."
She also warned against the emergence of a frightening "Islamic class" in Australia, supported by a "perverse interpretation of the Koran".
Thus speaketh the bigot who hath probably never read the Qur'an...or knows anything about Islam. Ignorance must be bliss.
Bishop's Comments of Hijab Un-Australian: Apology Demanded
Muslim Women's groups and Civil Rights groups have condemned suggestions by Bronwyn Bishop that the hijab should be banned in schools.
"Her likening of Muslim girls to slaves and Nazis demonstrate a complete ignorance of even basic Islamic teachings," said Ms Maha Abdo, spokeswoman for the Muslim Women's Association. "It is insulting, inflammatory and contrary to everything that the Prime Minister has said about respect for difference and religious tolerance. We are appalled and offended that Ms Bishop would compare Muslim Women to slaves or our religion to Nazism. We demand an unequivocal apology."
White woman's burden once more... After reading Ms. Bishop's biography, these comments sound like a last gasp from a fading politician, clinging to any radical position as long as it can secure her a few more votes.
"Ms Bishop's statements have achieved nothing other than inciting hatred and distrust of Muslims generally and Muslim women in particular, especially at a time when our elected representatives should be playing a role in uniting rather than dividing the community."
"Bishop's argument is Swiss cheese -- it's full of holes," adds Agnes Chong, co-convenor of the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network (AMCRAN). "On the one hand Ms Bishop claims it's a type of slavery, then she claims it's an act of defiance -- it can't be both. The argument itself is tainted with racist overtones, and assumes Muslim women are weak and not fully intellectually developed. We can assure her that this is absolutely not the case.
"Australia is about freedom and tolerance, and this shows neither. It is unAustralian to prohibit the free exercise of any religion. In fact, it is one of the few rights enshrined in the Australian Constitution."
We call upon the Prime Minister Mr John Howard to take on a leading role in this debate and openly condemn the statements of Ms Bishop. We urge Mr Howard to make it clear that neither he nor the Australian government hold such views nor would they consider any laws which infringe upon the rights of Muslim women in their choice of dress.
Have you noticed by now how these Australian politicians don't practice the Australian values they supposedly represent? Or is it that these two women, Panopoulos and Bishop, don't have any values (or retrograde values at best)?
Now, the good news:
Howard Opposes Bishop's Call For Ban On Headscarves
by Justin Norrie, The Sydney Morning Herald (29 August 2005)
Mr Howard [Prime Minister of Australia] said he opposed Mrs Bishop's push to ban Muslim girls from wearing headscarves at public schools because it would be impractical. But he defended Ms Bishop's "right to express a view".
Mrs Bishop has called the headscarf "a sort of iconic item of defiance", and echoed the call of the Victorian Liberal MP Sophie Panopoulos for a ban. Mrs Bishop's remark prompted much criticism, including a rebuke from the NSW Minister for Education, Carmel Tebbutt, who yesterday ruled out any change to the uniform policy, which allows schools to develop a dress code in consultation with the community. She said she supported the right of students to wear the headscarf as long as it was within the school code.
Mr Howard said: "I don't think it's practical to bring in such a prohibition. If you ban a headscarf you might for consistency's sake have to ban a yarmulke or a turban."
He said he could understand why "people might be affronted by a full coverage including the face. I don't think that is desirable."
However, Labor's education spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin, said Mr Howard had not gone far enough in opposing the MPs. "John Howard must show leadership and pull [them] into line over their calls. We need national leadership … not extremist knee-jerk reactions."
The federal Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, John Cobb, said Mrs Bishop's comments were ignorant and an insult to many Australians. In a statement he said: "The government does not seek to impose cultural sameness on Australians … Do we ban nuns from wearing a habit?"
Emphasis mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)