It’s early days yet, but we already have a clear winner in the next installment of the Ernie Awards for sexist language and derogatory public statements about women, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali.
Looking at the edited transcripts there is no way to spin this or hide inside the twin Burqa’s of misquote and misunderstood. We understand all too clearly what he’s saying, and it’s dark ages medieval stuff. He has a Sheiky grasp on Australian reality.
So, let me add my voice to the chorus and plurality of voices in condemning his remarks - obviously nothing but an unreserved apology without explanation is called for.
It’s also important to note that whatever political and social justifications are being served by some sections of the media and community in having the Sheik act as a lightning rod or focal point in the so-called clash of civilisations (in today’s climate of fear if he didn’t exist we’d have to invent him), I prefer to see his comments as bigotry brought on from a very narrowly held world view, something that will no doubt be addressed by his community, a community that we know is more than capable of informing itself about Australian life outside of the Sheik’s narrow perspectives.
Anyway, it’s pretty obvious that he needs to get out a bit more often.
A note to commenters, I’m home today and will moderate this post, I’ll have no sympathy toward the ususal suspects as far as moderation is concerned, if I think something is beyond the pale it will be deleted with no correspondence or claims of censorship entered into. Unlike others I’m quite happy to be a ruthless dictator.
Al-Hilali is an embarrassment to his own community. This sort of misogyny should not be tolerated. But nor should the Oz and other culture warriors imply that he’s in some sense representative of an entire community. As people like Waheed Aly have pointed out, his title of “Grand Mufti” is something accorded him by AFIC - an organisation that has its own problems. Part of the issue here is the encouragement of politicians for “ethnic” communities to form “representative” associations - most of which are anything but. The irony is that politics and ethnic patronage and dare I say it, branchstacking in both Labor and Liberal governments have entrenched separatist fools as self-proclaimed “leaders”.
This is really frightening. I’m getting in the fridge.
Some stupid comments from the Sheik, and it is pretty uncontroversial to say so. But what gets my goat, as both of you have already alluded to, is how the errant words of the Sheik are being used to push the ideological bandwagon of those who just want to piss all over Islam.
He’s absolutely unrepresentative of Australian Muslims and should not be cast by the mainstream media in the stylised and over-simplified role of “Australian Muslim Pope”.
Hilali is a misogynist dickhead.
Yes, the tone of this thread is certainly raised by my contribution. But I shall go on!
Nor is this story cheery reading for those of us with a vested interest in gender equality:
One one hand, we have the Sheik equating women to meat claiming men can’t control themselves — like cats. On the other hand, we have substantial minority of the general Australian population thinking that men just can’t control their need for sex and that’s why they rape women.
I’ll be joining Meredith in the fridge.
I get a little tired of the sheik’s excuse that he is was misinterpreted or misunderstood.
I don’t know why people are demanding an apology from the sheik because any such thing would be a hollow gesture. He has said what he believes and if he apologises this is not going to change his thinking one iota.
Let’s hope it’s a really big fridge, Kate. You might find me in there too.
What Ron said.
There’s enough Muslim voices around saying this guy is a clown and their own worst enemy. Whichever way you read his comments, they’re completely reprehensible. I suspect the true story is that he’s just your garden variety mufti with the limitations of his age and culture and he’s been built up as the “Grand Mufti” or whatever not just by the Murdoch Press but also by people in the community for their own respective political purposes. That doesn’t excuse him from responsibility.
I agree with Kate - if that survey is representative of the state of gender relations and attitudes in this country, we’re all in trouble - men and women both. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for Howard and the Oz pundits to come out and show some consistency and do the hard work of actually shifting these views about men, women and sex.
Yes Kate, he’s a misogynist dickhead.
It’s not the fucking cats’ fault either, IM-not-so-HO.
Maybe, just maybe, after about six weeks cooling off in the fridge with you other pieces of “meat”, I’ll be able to think calmly about this, but let’s have the unreserved withdrawal and apology first.
He can wiggle it in through the door seals.
An apology would be ‘good form’, but that’s about it. He has to go, or anyone he ‘represents’ will suffer no end of scorn for keeping the fuckwit around.
Plus he supports the Swans.
Lousy Freo-hater. Who needs you?
Agreed, FDB. You’d think Trad would be cluey enough to realise that defending the indefensible wrecks his own credibility also.
For defences of the indefensible see this (was misinterpreted, was only talking to old men, translation bad, am not feeling well today, blah blah blah):
[link]
FDB, you’re a Dockers supporter? We have to stick together.
Don’t worry, the fridge is well stocked with beer and such so you can stay in there indefinitely (or until your mortal bladders require relief).
Fucken’ hell, I don’t know what you’re all so surprised about. You can’t have religious leaders and not expect ‘em to make arses of themselves in the worst, nastiest and most public ways. Put Al-Hilaly in a small room with the pointyheads from the Westboro Baptist Church (the ones who picket military funerals in the US because they think the Iraq war is divine retribution for the existence of gays and lesbians) and you’d probably have some furious agreement about a lot of things.
Modesty. How I hate that word when applied to women.
Kim
Trad, is covering up for him and lying to us. He is our version of the racial group representative… another Al Sharpten.
I get angry about this kind of thing from a males perspective, I would violently disagree with the Shieks (and any other religion) efforts to apply his version of life on my partner.
There may be some truth to that JC, remember though Sharpton has sharpned up his act once the hot glare of publicity was placed on him. I remember the Brawley thing and it was shameless. Here’s hoping the same civilisation occurs to the good Shiek and his friends.
Freo and proud, Christine.
You’re in Melbourne, right? I’ve got one of those green anchors from the newish trams (found on the road, I swear) and I wear it as a pendant on game day. Like Flavor Flav’s clock, only heavier.
If you are in Melbourne, drop me a line (I spose LP admin could give you my email?) and come along for the Derby day mixed grudge match that we expats play twice a year. Fun, dangerous and really really pissy.
Nothing to add - it’s all been said eloquently enough by previous commenters.
Kim sez:
“You’d think Trad would be cluey enough to realise that defending the indefensible wrecks his own credibility also.”
Trad is a rather suspect figure and a definite hothead. Remember when he referred to anglo-celtic Australians as the “criminal dregs of white society”? He was also involved in the radical Islamic Youth Movement along with Bilal Khazal. [link]
And there’s this:
“JOHN LYONS: Something quite disturbing is happening here in western Sydney. Since the September 11 attacks in America 18 months ago, I’ve made many visits here to monitor the mood of the Muslim community. But something is now changing. Even people regarded as moderate seem to be becoming more hardline. Listen, for example, to the answer given by Sheik Hilali’s spokesman, Keysar Trad, when I asked whether he accepts that Osama bin Laden was behind for those September 11 attacks.
KEYSAR TRAD: What concerns me in that field is the unfortunate situation that so many of the so-called Bin Laden tapes that we’ve seen so far have been proven to be fabrications. We’ve seen evidence, articles in newspapers to say “Oh look, this last tape that we showed you two weeks ago “is a fabrication.” But, the creation of these tapes, whoever is behind them, does raise doubt with people.” [link]
Howard, Murdoch and sexist Skips worked in to the discussion in less than 20 comments.
Impressive.
But no equivalency theory vis-a-vis the Church?
Disappointing.
I also reckon the Sheik’s just as offensive to men as to women. I rather resent being told that I have the self control of a rutting animal, and that I apparently haven’t got the wherewithal to resist those Satanic “weapons of seduction”.
On the other hand, I really don’t like these political/media feeding frenzies. The whole ritual of denunciation of this guy all feels a bit too self congratulatory, he’s a misogynist fool, but we’re all right. But, as Kate’s post suggests, it’s not that simple. And far be it for the govt to actually take any sort of critical evaluation of Australian culture - that’d be all a bit too black armband, wouldn’t it?
Hmmm, Satanic weapons of seduction.
Also see AM for more apologetics from the Lebanese Muslim Assoc. (which runs the mosque the sermon was delivered at)
If you heard the program, Tom Zreika sounded very nervous indeed.
I was impressed by this reaction which might blow away some muslim-women stereotypes:
Al Hilaly spokesman plays down ‘uncovered meat’ comments
Not really, C. L. It’s not as if they’re not connected.
Agree with most of mal’s comment.
There’s no doubt that these remarks are deeply insulting to men - and if Kate’s link is correct that many of the non-Islamic population hold similar attitudes then we really should get some strong public leadership on this, Sheik or no Sheik.
Going by Hilali’s view on male sexuality, he’s got the wrong gender locked inside the house.
Cold in here.
Dark, too.
And crowded. But it’s lovely to
meetmake all your acquaintances at last.This quote from the research Kate posted concerns me:
It concerns me not only because it provides ammunition to those who would keep Australia white, but because it suggests that there really is some sort of clash of civilisations, and that some men are irredeemable, and unworthy of the name.
If it’s any help, us libertarians will muster all the firepower we can and start guarding your fridge.
I can take care of myself, thanks. Without guns.
Bigoted comment from elderly cleric becomes ‘news’ worldwide. Meanwhile, ‘NATO raid kills 50 Afghan civilians’ (somewhere in the back pages) - no wuzzas. Ever heard the one about sticks and stones? Cos the neo-con commentators and pollies who are outraged by these comments, are the same people happy to see Iraqi women being turned into real ‘meat’. C’mon people, let’s not be slaves to the clash-of-uncivilisations script.
I’ll provide the pig, just so’s you get some shootin’ practice in Helen.
Can’t see how we are that Will, we are all well aware of the carnage going on in Iraq and it’s tangential importance however………..
There are few things sexier than a woman with a warm gun.
I am aware you are aware, and I didn’t mean to imply anyone here was a neocon. No doubt the comments were bigoted and idiotic. But this is a real chip-wrapper story, which is snow-balling in the way Jack Straw’s ‘veil’ remarks did. And what was the result then? This article in medialens says it all:
[link]
“Our search found that the words ‘Jack Straw’ and ‘veil’ had been mentioned in 422 articles over the previous nine days. The words ‘Madonna’ and ‘adoption’ had been mentioned in 312 articles. The words ‘Iraq’ and ‘Lancet’ had been mentioned in just 53 articles across the entire British press.”
Meaning exactly what Will? Here at LP and other forums there is ample discussion about Iraq and the carnage there so I’m having trouble understanding your point.
Phil,
Be sure that you clear your posts with Will in future so that you don’t let any of the chip wrapper stuff get through and only talk about what he thinks is important.
I want to get back on topic, you know, about shootin’ and pigs and stuff
What a jerk. As someone who works in the area of domestic violence prevention, I find his comments beneath contempt. Such idiocy perpetuates the inaccurate belief that rape is about sex.
There is no place in our society for such opinions, and I hope he loses his tenure in the upcoming Islamic Council elections.
My point is that the Sheik’s comments do not deserve the coverage or commentary they are getting. They have become a convenient platform to launch the same tired arguments against multiculturalism, and more specifically to depict Muslims as being backwards and sexually repressed. Of course the Sheik deserves blame for his words, but when the BBC website runs a ‘have your say’ discussion under the question “Is cleric’s apology enough?”, it’s an invitation for more bigotry.
Trackback
I disagree, Will.
I’ve already made the point and so has Phil in the post that Al-Hilali is not representative of the Islamic community.
But his comments, as Kate’s contribution indicates, are worryingly representative of opinion not just in his circles but in the broader community.
We can, and should, therefore, broaden the debate that has already been sparked off by pointing out that women are not “meat” and men not “frisky cats”, whether it’s the Sheik or 40% of Australians who think so.
It’s possible to do so and combat dog whistling and racism at the same time.
Not all conversations have to be as black and white as you seem to think they will turn out to be.
Actually Will, we are all grown ups here. How Islam fits in to our multicultural society is a big issue that does deserve attention and plenty of it. Let’s not forget that Hilali is also the clown who described 9/11 as “God’s work against the oppressors”. It says something awfully disturbing that this creature can make the most vile comments and still retain the support of his organisation. I want to know why.
Will, you are wrong.
I’m missing the bit about where no one knows about the carnage in Iraq and isn’t apalled by it, public sentiment is fore square against the war now, as a result I’d suggest that the media has done a fine job in educating us about Iraq and it’s many horrors.
A suggested bias that is a constant complaint by the right?
There is a problem with the coverage — it tends to say “Sheik compares women to meat” rather than “Sheik says rape victims should be jailed for life” and “Sheik says recent gang rape sentences were too harsh.”
Phil, I know you want to stay on topic, so I’ll just agree to disagree “that the media has done a fine job in educating us about Iraq and its many horrors”.
Kim, I take your points - it is quite a relief that LP is a forum where there can be nuanced debate. I don’t want to stifle discussion, but I do question the motives of many high-profile pollies lining up to condemn the remarks. It’s especially rich hearing Howard saying that the comments could cause “lasting damage to the perceptions of that community within the broader Australian community”, even if he’s right.
Steve M, I also don’t see how the guy retains support, perhaps that won’t last for long.
There are a couple of things which disturbing about response to the Shiek’s comments. Rape was intended as his subject, and he blamed women for 90% of the problem. That is so wrong it is worth his resignation.
What disturbs me about the response, though, is, first of all, that there is a group of people around the Shiek, amazingly in leadership of a religious organisation, so clearly willing to lie about his intentions, and to defend his position. What else are they prepared to lie about?
Secondly, while it is good to hear Musl*m voices in opposition to these horrible remarks, why weren’t they so vocal about other controversial, unAustralian comments he has made, particularly to do with 9/11?
Supporters of the war in Iraq and supporters of Hilali have the same problem.
It is emotionally quite difficult to acknowledge the mistake of a position in which one has made a considerable investment of physical and psychic resources.
We see several frequent commenters on the Iraq war on this very blog being very conflicted over that struggle between reason and emotion.
I believe that it is true to say that ridicule and condemnation from others does not smooth the path to acceptance.
It is usually advisable to accept the sincerity of the opposing, incorrect position and to attempt to reason with persons who hold an incorrect opinion.
Only when persons demonstrate stubbornness and irrational behaviour should the gloves come off. I don’t believe that Hilali’s supporters are in that unco-operative
state of mind. Some ofthe press coverage has been a little unhealthy in its eagerness to excoriate and to condemn.
Sometimes, however, shock treatment is necessary.
It stems from a primitive, specifically pre-phenomenological perspective. A sophisticated perspective admits, “I have such and such a feeling, which comes from my appetites. It is my own feeling, specifically, and it is my own body and mind which creates this feeling. My feeling may be directed to an object ‘out there’ but it originates with me, and I am ultimately responsible for how I deal with it.”
A much more unsophisticated — primitive — view does not factor in this element of understanding which comes from sophisticated phenomenology. To the unsophisticated primitive (as you rightly point out, dwelling in all “races”), if I feel something, it is because there is “something out there” forcing me to feel it. The reality that I am forced to feel something against my will is unquestioned. To feel an “external force” working upon one’s thinking is to feel the only reality there is. Therefore, to feel lust for a woman is to feel her witchy-magnetic power acting over you and making you do stuff. Unsophisticated minds will not accept that it is not “her” who is causing this feeling, but one’s own mental and emotional responses to her. They have no (or little) self reflexive capabilities. They don’t analyse themselves as complex beings capable of controlling their wills, but instead move around “naturally”.
–At lot of misogyny comes from male stupidity which has been naturalised as…well, “natural”.
Howard, Murdoch, Baptists, sexist Skips…
**New**: Neocons, NATO, “Supporters of the war in Iraq”.
George Pell yet to be wheeled out.
Just remember he said this at a mosque full of people but no-one has said anything until now!
Can we have a quarrantined thread just for Katz and CL, please?
I think the only other way to sort it out would be with a ruler.
By God you are appalling, CL. Only a day or two ago you gave Pope John Paul II a kick in the guts for not supporting the Iraq War and for meeting Tariq Aziz.
Oh, and that vile homophobe George Pell can go fuck himself.
**UPDATE**: George Pell wheeled out.
that is apelling
Wait, I don’t understand. Why are y’all complaining? Why aren’t you celebrating diversity?
After all, this is it, folks: the real thing. Finally, at last, here you are, face to face with the genuine multicultural “Other,” and you affect to be horrified that he thinks, well, “other”-wise than you?
But isn’t that what being “other” really *is*? And moreover, he pays you the ultimate compliment: he thinks *you* are “Other” as well!
“Wait, hold on!” you say. “*We* can’t be the “Other”! We’re in our own country, in our own culture!” Not if it’s multicultural, you aren’t. Remember? That’s what the word means. So, he says his view of these matters is the word of God, as validated by his reading of his law and scripture. You say he misunderstands the socio-behavioral aspect of sexual crimes, as revealed by your social science findings. But who’s to say who’s really right here? Aren’t they all just constructs?
I’m with Ron. Why should the fellow “apologize”? He did you the honor of saying exactly what he thinks. Why should he apologize for that? Ought he to submit to, say, a program of ’self-criticism,’ because he disagrees with the pieties of your own particular script? Whoa, this Freedom thing’s a real pain in the ass, innit.
Celebrate! Celebrate!
What a load of strawman bollocks, j_p_z.
With respect –
Which part, exactly, Kate? Why not make an argument instead of calling me names?
You slapped my last comment from about an hour ago into moderation, and it never came out!
Mysoginist statements about women are a multicultural issue?
But maybe j-p-z is right in one respect, the Sheik is to be commended for sharing his views, just as we and others are to be commended for a critique. Long live diversity!
This is all in a days work in a democratic society, and is evidence of the balancing and centering effect, through this we discover where the real center lies on any given issue.
The public hates the war and would like us to get out, that’s the center, and the PM is out of step with that mainstream.
Hilaly makes stupid statements about women and is condemned by the full spectrum of Aus society, that’s the center of opinion.
Let’s see how far we can take this.
Sorry Facelift, it’s on autopilot not sure why it trapped you and others. I thought the comment fine though I can’t understand your un-Australian reference. Anyway there it is.
J_P_Z, how much do you know about the history of Australia?
PC is correct. Australians have been encountering (not confronting) and assimilating “others” for a long time. Despite official policies of racism and then of multiculturalism, assimilation has been the overwhelming experience of newcomers to the country.
And to a large extent this process of assimilation takes place along the lines suggested by Phil:
The centre itself is dynamic. People adapt and get by. It’s messy and unprogrammatic. There are many points of conflict but they don’t crystalise.
To take the Hilali case, Muslims have publicly recoiled. And you can be there’s a lot of private soul-searching going on as well.
I predict that there will be lots of mostly empty mosques dotting Australian suburbs, just like there are lots of mostly empty Christian churches.
Religion is a recessive gene in the cultural body of Australia.
I am just watching the news and they are interviewing lots of people outside the Lakemba Mosque.
They LOVE their sheik and think the sun shines out of that place.
Does everyone here realise that if the Sheik’s remarks were reported, but there was no tape, then the “out of context” “misquoted” approach would have successfully killed the story within 24hrs? Does anyone know who recorded the sermon?
Have you all seen the bit in the Sheik’s speech where he pretty clearly references the “Leb Style” gang rapes?
“, it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.” Link
Like who exactly? As Ron says, Lakemba mosque members are standing by their man.
Hilaly might not represent all muslims, but I think its fair to say that he represents those that attend his sermons, which is a fair whack of the muslim population of Sydney, no?
I think I remember reading somewhere that the attendance at a sermon is usually 500, I would’nt be surprised though, the community must feel like they are under a microscope at the moment so a closing of ranks is to be expected…..at least in public statements.
I’ll be watching SBS now to see what kind of run this gets since their translation pretty well confirmed his comments.
Anyone who thinks the sheik is speaking just for himself is sadly mistaken.
Keyser Trad and the other supporters of the sheik are obviously embarrassed by what he said but not ashamed otherwise they would have sacked him.
See, Phil’s got the right idea! As Mister Nat Hentoff used to say, you don’t counter hate speech with proscriptions and censorings, you counter it with –wait for it– MORE SPEECH! By calling on this jerk to apologize and retract his (honestly expressed) words, you are asking him to deny what he actually thinks: you are negating the very ‘being’ of his thought and his speech act. This can lead to no place good; mostly either more lies and feigning, or else defensiveness and needless stiffening. Far better to dissect and anatomize his speech act in the open air, and make a convincing case about what exactly you think is the matter with it. Then let the public decide!
Don’t fall for the trap of painting yourselves into a corner by being ‘offended’ by stupidity — consider fairly: the Muslims thought Pope Benedict and the Danish cartoonists were every bit as ’stupid’ as you think this guy is about certain kinds of crimes… And their response was a good index of their level of intellectual and civil sophistication. Don’t let the same thing be said for yourselves.
On a lesser point… Phil — yes, in fact I *do* think (at least potentially) that “misogynist statements about women are a multicultural issue”. Insofar as some cultures are demonstrably more ‘misogynist’ than others in particular effects (not always along the same lines, granted); and insofar as one might, say, believe that misogyny is unacceptable as a baseline value in one’s baseline ‘culture’ (assuming one is prepared to admit that one actually *has* a culture, heh heh), then, yes: you can see how a potential ‘contradiction’ is prepared by an extreme multicultural (as opposed to merely civically tolerant) approach to civil society, in the same way that a dissonance is prepared in Bartok. You gotta be prepared for everything in a free world. (As that great social philosopher Daffy Duck once said, “Keepth them on their toeth.”)
Pavlov’s Cat: “J_P_Z, how much do you know about the history of Australia?”
Sadly, not nearly as much I’d like, or ought, to know. But to be clear, I’m talking about the distinction between ‘multiculturalism’ as a benighted ideology and a false god, as opposed to simple multiplicity of human kind as a social fact of life.
After all, ma chere demoiselle, you’re talking to an American and a New Yorker: I confront and ‘assimilate’ more cultures on my morning stroll to the liquor store than you might in the course of a month. We used to have quite a proud track record on managing these issues over here, until fairly recently; I think that the decay set in when the well-meaning bozos of the multicultural ‘theoretical’ left got their hands on the steering wheel. Oh well.
‘Thus the whirligig of Time brings in his revenges!’ — Feste
SBS provided a long roll-call of Muslim opponents of Hilali, including the Victorian Muslim Association.
Hilali’s toast.
j_p_z,
That’s not a bad approximation of the state of affairs here, give or take the odd inflammatory statement on one side of the cultural divide or another.
If you want a good insight into real sectarianism in Australia, read this brief bio of Catholic Archbishop Daniel Mannix, especially the bits between Easter 1916 and 1921.
This was much more serious. And it taught Australians a lesson about religious fanaticism which hasn’t been forgotten.
j_p_z, Katz has given a pretty accurate summary of the process of migrant integration in Australia. Unlike the US, Australian society it doesn’t have a strongly embedded ideology of integration/assimilation, as reflected in the American concept of the Melting Pot and its unifying symbols of flag, constitution and revolutionary foundation and, as Katz has so well pointed out, whatever the official policy, be it the White Australia policy that prevailed up until the mid-1960s or “multiculturalism” from the mid 1970s, the actual on-the-ground reality is that Australians have a “live-and-let live” attitude which is pretty tolerant of difference and, happily, becoming more so. As Katz put it, the centre itself is dynamic. People adapt and get by.
However there are lines that can’t be crossed and the reaction to the Shiek’s comment indicates that he has crossed one of those lines and is being censured for doing so. In this regard he is not being treated differently than a Victorian County Court judge in the 1990s who was condemned from all quarters for his sentencing remarks to a man convicted of the terrifying rape of a prostitute when he opined that her ordeal was less traumatic than it would have been for a “chaste”woman and that that was a factor to be taken into account in fixing sentence.
Katz, I did call for an apology, unreserved and without explanation because that would be unnecessary, we know that’s what he thinks, but an apology is what civilised folks do when they have offended, it may give them time to pause and reflect……….unfortunately tonight’s news has brought us thjis:
Recalcitrant? Indeed. So in light of that Naomi’s inflammatory idea may have some merit.
As an interesting aside, I first heard news of this nutter’s comments by hearing it in the morning headline bulletin on the radio - here in Austria! I think it’s pretty amazing that some Imam’s comments made in Australia manage to make headline news here. Nothing like a media story that plays to people’s predjudices…
Katz is spot on about Mannix’ career and what it reveals about really nasty and oppressive sectarianism in Australia. Its legacies still rear their ugly heads occasionally, and it really wasn’t buried until the 60s.
The sheik shows his repentance:
[link]
As a number of other people have said, let’s get this in perspective. As I understand it, the Sheik is where he is because he enjoys the support of the Lebanese Muslim community around Lakemba. Trad’s interests are tied up in the same community. Both have leveraged this into some sort of political/media role where they are taken to be spokespeople or leaders for all Muslims in Australia. In fact they are not, and the Lebanese Muslims in south west Sydney are a small minority of all Australian Muslims. As I said at the top of the thread, both politicians who’ve stroked these idiots’ egos by anointing them as representatives and the culture warriors in the meejah whose interests are served by having bozos to show up as representatives are part of the problem.
The papers today, and other media, have been full of Muslims distancing themselves from this crap.
I do agree with Will on one thing - some of Howard’s comments appear to be an attempt to do a bit of dog-whistling on the back of this controversy:
[link]
I can only ask again, rhetorically, how much do you know about the history of Australia? While I don’t take strolls to the liquor store in the mornings myself (a worrying remark, I thought), I am likely on a walk around my suburb to encounter at least one of the following: an Aboriginal family, a huge crowd of regulars outside one of two local Russian Orthodox churches, a Vietnamese pharmacist and/or baker (several of both within walking distance), a refugee from one or other of several African countries, a girl or woman in a hijab, the Greek Orthodox priest (permanently dressed for work) who lives around the corner, and the bonkers old Chinese/Russian lady who lives directly across the street.
I think you missed at least half of my point, which is that even as a New Yorker you probably ought to be thinking twice about condescendingly lecturing (and you are lecturing, and hectoring with it) an entire country, about whose history you’ve just said yourself you know little, on the subject of what it ought or ought not to be doing with or about ‘multiculturalism’ as policy — about the history of which in this country you presumably also know very little.
I’ve found you an urbane and reasonable sort of voice in this forum up till now, but I’m actually quite offended by the patronising tone of your last two comments and I can only assume it’s been triggered by generally anti-Islamic feeling. I know that certain Australian bloggers and their droogs, to say nothing of our Prime Miniature and his, tend to give the impression that we in Australia regard ourselves as the loyal poodle citizens of some teeny-tiny extra newly-United State … but the rest of us have got news for you.
Abdullah Saeed from Melbourne University:
[link]
I’d also encourage people to read Irfan’s article which Phil linked to in the post:
[link]