It’s hard to disagree with Amir Butler that the Government plan to licence Muslim clerics is absurd. Does anyone actually consider the overtones of such a scheme when compared to the Czechoslovakian Communist regime’s official ideologically approved Catholic priests? Unsurprisingly, in Cold War Czeckoslavakia, the “Underground Church” had a lot more legitimacy than the facsimile that carried a stamp of Communist approval. It’s for reasons like this that Butler - no doubt correctly - predicts that such a scheme will be counter-productive.
But a further question arises. For about the first two years of the Government’s tenure, the Liberals stayed reasonably close to their stated ideological position and cut back the size of the public service, even if the claim that they were reducing red tape was largely symbolic. But as the Howard government ages, it seems as if Ministers never meet a scheme for extra bureaucracy and regulation that they don’t immediately embrace. In part, this is probably a result of the Government’s control freak complex - for ostensible liberals, there isn’t much dedication to personal freedom in their practice if not their rhetoric. And it’s probably also a sign - also indicated by phenomena such as the replacement of political staffers by public servants in many Ministerial offices - that a government grown tired manifests itself with Ministers more keen on getting headlines and plotting for future advantage than actually grappling with public policy. John Howard likes to compare himself to Menzies. One criticism of the latter period of the Liberal incumbency from 1949 to 1972 is that the Government was asleep at the wheel and signed up to anything bureaucrats waved under their noses.
It would be immensely more difficult to come up with creative ideas about how to engage Islamic communities in order to fight extremism. Much easier to create another regulatory body, and stifle freedom.
whoa! this is scary!
I wonder when ‘governance’ became ‘regulatory body’ in the minds of the current neoliberal regime?
Quite apart from the justice of such a scheme, I wonder if the Commonwealth licensing Imams would be in contravention of Sect. 116 of the Federal Constitution:
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
(copied from the http://www.aph.gov.au website)
At a non-lawyerly guess, having licensed Imams might go against the “shall not many any law for… …prohibiting the free exercise of any religion” phrase of this section.
Mark
Butler is an apologist for Islam. He has as much credibility as a holocaust denier.
Recently he commented at another site where he was happy to see the Victorian chapter of this “religion’ go after people under Bracks Blasphemy laws. He said this after the “Unequal Opportunity Commissionâ€? set up the two Christian pastors under this law. For those who don’t know, May. Halou, an employee of this commission got a few Muslim converts to spy on the pastor’s preaching against the dangers of Islam and then complain to the Tribunal about them. The Star Chamber all over again.
Like the rest of the pack, Butler doesn’t want transparency in terms of what is being preached at the regular “sermons”.
Finally it seems this government is no longer behaving like a scared deer in headlights. It is doing the right thing by recognizing Islam for what it is- a political/ religious organization bent on the overthrow of the Liberal West.
My concern is that we simply don’t go far enough in recognizing the danger Islam poses to our way of life and begin promoting a compensatory out-migration program for all Muslims. This program would compensate people and would be done in a humane way. It would at least recognize we have made a mistake in allowing people of this religious/political faith to come onto our shores and a voluntary out-migration program pay people to leave.
Back to your comment.
Seeing Islam is dangerous to our health, it must be controlled in such a way that poses little danger to the rest of the community. Of course most Muslims are peaceful. However Islam is not so, which is where the danger lies. In other words it’s not the people we ought to be worried about (nearly all, one hopes) it’s the religion/ political movement that is not moderate.
You attempted to compare Islam to other faiths. Christianity does not preach violence towards unbelievers.
Well, I fundamentally disagree with you, Joe, but it seems unlikely that any arguments I make would persuade you to change your views. However, I would comment that whatever Butler’s interest in making those points (and as an Islamic person it’s clearly more personal for him than it is for me), his arguments deserve to be evaluated on their merits. And they have merit. I don’t see that hyperbole about the “danger Islam poses…” etc is at all responsive to the intrinsic value of what he’s arguing.
I share Joe’s concerns about Islam or the wahhibist version however allowing the government to licence Islamic clerics opens up the possibility of them licencing other religions.
Vastly Stupid
Even the AFIC have called for it.
So why is it a problem?
Otherwise, we have the alternate position where mongers like Sheik Omran (see: http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/) can encourage all sort of actions, but claim that while they may have said ’something’, they didn’t participate in any action that followed, therefore somehow proving innocence.
The government infringing freedom of religion is a serious issue. I know that the current attitude is that we can discard any fundamental freedoms or constitutional restrictions if someone asserts that they will help “fight terrorists”, but I remain devoted to the notion that we should be vigilant about attacks on freedoms.
On a practical level, it’s likely to backfire.
As to Sheikh Omran, if he says something that is actionable, there seem to be multiple legal sanctions available now. I can’t see how “refusing to licence” him would do anything other than increase his credibility with his followers.
The whole thing is philosophically wrong and practically stupid.
Homer’s got it in one. Most religions and denominations licence their clerics through power hierarchies, and only need the State to step in when it comes to genuine loons like the Branch Davidians.
What’s needed is some kind of diocesan control, not government control. Yet another argument for Papacy…
Mark
it is not as though this requirement is being made without issues, is it? In other words we do have experience of Islamic “preachers” teaching that Jihad and suicide bombimgs are just another life style choice on the way to picking up 72 virgins.
Butler, along with his other cohorts in arms are masters at playing the rest of of us for suckers. They use the media to great effect in attempting to promote the cause of Islam.
example:
go take a look the way the way our “Islamic leaders” messaged their way through Cronulla.
Day after.
Trad and his buddies decry the behavior of their own
days after day one.
Tone changes a little. Complaints aired about the behviour of the residents.
Silence about the attacks after the Lakemba Mosque meeting.
a few days after that
Trad attends Demo where whites are referred to as racists.
I admire Butler and his buddies in the way they continually pull this off. They are winning the media wars for political Islam- the home team.
If Butler is against registration may be he ought to explain the following.
Butler has himself said preaching about killing Jews and non- believers ought to be stopped. In other words, he agrees with the basic tenet of registration. Could Butler then please explain how this is to be policed?
Sacha Blumen
It could be argued in court that Islam is in fact a political/ religious movement. I wouldn’t want to bet against the advocate arguing on these points.
Another good argument for the one true church, Liam
Joe - on the issue of policing, even if I accepted everything you say, how would licencing or refusing to licence an Imam stop this? I repeat my point - there are mutliple laws which are now in effect which can be applied to any particular speech act that transgresses the boundaries.
It’s all nuts. Every single example from history shows that if you try to prevent people saying things that you don’t like, or try to control what they say, it backfires on you.
Trad is not an Imam.
Week by week
“Otherwise, we have the alternate position where mongers like Sheik Omran (see: [link]) can encourage all sort of actions, but claim that while they may have said ’something’, they didn’t participate in any action that followed, therefore somehow proving innocence”.
I disagree with you. Omran is doing the right thing as far as he is concerned. He is adhering to the basic text of the Koran. The Koran under Islam is “the last and perfect word of God”. The Koran cannot be interpreted and so Omran is correctly preaching the Koran. And the Koran does say Jews are pigs who ought to be killed along with the unbelievers.
So Omran is not a hate mongering deviant in terms of his religious beliefs. He is being true to Islam.
So you’re an expert on Islam, hey, Joe?
Who needs Crusader Lad now!
JC - you could argue that most religions are political movements. Certainly it could be argued that Christianity is a political movement…
I agree with Mark’s statement: ‘I know that the current attitude is that we can discard any fundamental freedoms or constitutional restrictions if someone asserts that they will help “fight terroristsâ€?, but I remain devoted to the notion that we should be vigilant about attacks on freedoms. ‘
It seems that people are dead scared of terrorists: a fear which can result in people not exercising their analytical abilities. I have not seen evidence supporting JCs contention that Islam is “… - a political/ religious organization bent on the overthrow of the Liberal West”.
Turn it up JC, that’s just the old arguments they used to make about ignorant Irish Catholics in the twenties. If Islam were an organisation there’d be no rogue Imams. This kind of sectarianism doesn’t help.
Still, if it makes you feel better, you can go on looking under the bed…
That’s because it’s not, Sacha. Islam is a religion with a variety of sects, cultural expressions, and is practiced in different ways by about a billion believers across a multitude of nations. I doubt that the highest priority for Javanese farmers is the “overthrow of the Liberal West”
Just as Christianity is incredibly diverse, and has some distasteful manifestations, so does Islam. These are really political groups dressed up with religious rhetoric. Stigmatising all Muslims or the religion itself with the actions of a small minority is incredibly counter productive. As demonstrated by the only practical solution Joe can come up with being forced expulsion of Australians. Speaks for itself really.
Yes, Liam, very much like the hysterical attitude towards Irish Catholics right up until the 1940s, when the Right drifted further round the fishbowl and found a new enemy; whereupon the Micks were found to be useful anti-Communist allies.
Similar imagined perils of foreign clerical domination (’Rome Rule ‘/ The Caliphate) etc. Jeez, 10 minutes ago it was Asians in Cabramatta. The Right is just like a panicky old geriatric sometimes - cant recall who they were hating earlier this morning before the latest phantom peril distracted them.
Yeah, whatever happened to the good old 5T gangs? If the 1990s rhetoric had been right they should have had about five seats in the NSW Upper House by now.
I guess they just weren’t so handy for religious stereotyping.
JC you write: “So Omran is not a hate mongering deviant in terms of his religious beliefs. He is being true to Islam.”
Well, here is where the problem begins. Have a look at this site, that looks at the >70 literal contradictions within the Quran. (I’m sure there is as many in the Bible). The point is that with all these contradictions, people like Omran can selectively pick and choose to suit whatever purpose they want, and still claim to be theologically sound.
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
Which is not to say I approve of religions with a poor record on women’s rights, a male-dominated hierarchy and a medieval autocratic structure, with theocratic ambitions.
Far from it.
Its just that Father O’Driscoll baptised me before I really had a chance to review the literature.
Mark:
“As demonstrated by the only practical solution Joe can come up with being forced expulsion of Australians. Speaks for itself really”
I didn’t say that did I. This is what I said
“It would at least recognize we have made a mistake in allowing people of this religious/political faith to come onto our shores and a voluntary out-migration program pay people to leave”
When did voluntary morph as forced?
The trouble with the left is that they are not being malevolent when it comes to this issue. They think and hope that with a little tweaking here and there we will all be able to get along.
Trouble is , it doesn’t always work that way. The trouble also is that when things are left to fester it invariably becomes a explosion. Like Cronulla, next time only bigger.
liam
After 8 people I knew got pulverized in the WTC I decided to spend some time reading up on the religion of peace. I bought four books on the subject ranging from Bernard Lewis’ well-known book to one that explained the Koran: I tried reading it but it was too boring.
Joe - it’s hard to see how such a programme would be “voluntary” in practice - how welcome would you feel if the government suddenly announced it didn’t want you here because of your religion and would assist you to leave?
The problem with Bernard Lewis is that he’s a neo-con and has a vested interest in promoting the whole “clash of civilisations” theme. You might do better to do some reading on Islam by more objective people without a political barrow to push.
the word is repetitive Joe.
It is very very repetitive
JC on forced expulsions of Australians:
Compulsory. Emigration.
If it looks like, smells like, and sounds like Auslander Raus, that’s probably what it is, JC.
Liam
At the risk of giving Homer repetitive strain injury out no fault of my own. Let me repeat….. my suggestion would be voluntary along with a financial inducment to leave. I am not talking pennies here. Offer them 150k per family of four to leave. That would be enough to get them started.
“If it looks like, smells like, and sounds like Auslander Raus…..”
Err no it isn’t. Last time I looked the Jews were sent to concentration camps. I am talking about sending Muslims home.
Where’s home?
I’m afraid this is yet another item of evidence for my emerging view that there is now very little moral distinction between our government and the Communists.
The Soviets had “licensed” religious leaders who had to read right off the government script. The Soviets also had “anti-hate laws” (http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2005/12/communist-origins-of-anti-hate-laws.html), which were introduced to control religious expression. The Soviets also had torture camps and gulags where “deviants” would be held without charge and “re-educated” if necessary. We have now either implemented or openly endorsed all of these items.
However, this does not mean that we should ignore the spectre of radical Islam. It’s just that turning Australia into a Soviet police state is unlikely to do anything to combat radical Islam - it certainly did not work in Russia.
Nice to see someone pick up on my comparison between these Howard government tactics and Eastern bloc Communist regimes, Steve. As often happens, I find myself agreeing with your libertarian sentiments.
The plan was originally suggested by Muslim clerics. I doubt any Catholic priests in Cold War Czeckoslavakia asked the communist government to “please crack down on us.”
What the plan’s MUSLIM promoters suggest is that pretend authority figures who preach violence, 9/11 denialism or - for example - that women who get raped asked for it, should be “named and shamed.”
In Europe, Scientology is more or less persona non grata (pardon the anthropomorphisation). Islam is a far more dangerous cult and should be treated with the same kind of sophisticated Continental disdain.
C.L. enters stage right and plays the Ruddockule card.
Islam is a cult?
Auslander Raus doesn’t mean ‘Foreigners piss off’ (without specifying what flavour of foreigners)?
Geez, I must have gone to a really, really bad school.
I’m sure if you read Currency’s blog, Pavlov’s Cat, you’ll find numerous instances of this sort of lanaguage being used. He’s known as Crusader Lad because his rhetoric faithfully reproduces 14th century denunciations of Islam with almost no updating.
Fourteenth century? You’re over-estimating Islam’s modernity by several centuries. But go ahead and defend “clerics” who advocate murder and trivialise rape.
Good look for your blog.
Disingenous, C.L. I’m not defending anything except fundamental freedoms.
CL, are you advocating licensing Islamic clerics?
Jeez, I dont want to sound all millenarian, but is this type of cultural defensiveness really a sign of a confident, hegemonic, triumphant and expanding culture… or a defensive, shrill, always panicky awareness of decline? It was certainly the latter in the early middle ages.
My point: sooner or later, I do hope the West realises what poor ambassadors for cultural and poltical achievement our current crop of Neo-Con leaders are.
Homer - and Earth to Lefty Elitist - it was Muslims who suggested the plan. The government has never proposed “licensing clerics.”
I don’t care who came up with the idea, it is not a progressive solution. Some thing that does sound like a good idea is Yemen Dialogue Committee. Last week SBS showed a documentary on the committee. It seems that there has been some success in turning jihadists around.
I was talking more generally, CL.
The body was appointed by Howard and is government run, C.L. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …
I saw that doco, Shaun. Though I think the concept of justice and forgiveness - let alone ‘loving thy neighbour’ - is far too un-Christian for C.L.
I’m still waiting for RWDBs to finally become relaxed and comfortable. How many decades of Howardianism will it take? Don’t they realise that the Dear Leader has us all in his paternal care, and there’s no need to worry their heads about evil?
Lefty E, please continue with your cataloguing of RWDBisms. It’s proving most enlightening.
Butler is an apologist for Islam. He has as much credibility as a holocaust denier.
Recently he commented at another site where he was happy to see the Victorian chapter of this “religion’ go after people under Bracks Blasphemy laws. He said this after the “Unequal Opportunity Commission� set up the two Christian pastors under this law. For those who don’t know, May. Halou, an employee of this commission got a few Muslim converts to spy on the pastor’s preaching against the dangers of Islam and then complain to the Tribunal about them. The Star Chamber all over again.
Do you have a link to these comments?
“…it was Muslims who suggested the plan.”
But this actually makes the government’s actions worse than they already were. Adopting proposals on the basis of the self-serving ethnic lobby’s demands is precisely the opposite course one would like to see.
Once again, we are seeing governments blatantly interfering in organised religion, all in the name of “fighting terrorism”.
I’m with Steve on this!
CL says:
So is it good because we can restrict and delicense Imams, bad because Muslims came up with the idea or what?
It makes no sense to have government licensed religious leaders of any sort, unless we enter a new era of liberal democracy whereby religious leaders become a regulating body for a government department, which rather sounds like a melding of church and state.