More notes on ISA Deliberative Poll - Muslims & non-Muslims in Australia

This is a continuation of notes on this event which took place in Canberra in March 2007. You can read a previous set of notes here. These notes are based on my hand-written notes taken during the conference. The comments here are largely those of Mohammed Omran, a salafi/wahhabi imam from Melbourne. They are in response to a comment that some people argue that Muslims have a problem with secularism i.e. neutrality of government in its treatment of religion.

[01] Omran says his presence in Australia was as a practising Muslim, not just a normal Muslim. He is here as a Sheik who came to Australia to teach Muslims here their religion. Omran has lived most of his life in Australia.

[02] Omran wonders why the so-called “Muslim issue” is such a crucial issue given that Muslims make up only 1.5% of Australia’s total population.

[03] Omran believes that so much of national discussion on security-related issues involves decision makers living in a state of denial about important issues rather than coming together to talk about real issues that actually affect national security.

[04] Omran mentioned how 16 years ago, during the 1st Gulf War, Bob Hawke stood up and declared he was PM for all Australians, Muslim and non-Muslim. Hawke did this after learning of many acts of discrimination against Australian Muslim citizens.

[05] Muslims have their responsibility to keep Australia safe. However, they are only small in number. This means that any steps they take are often hard to notice.

[06] We need to stop putting in the minds of our youth that Muslims are different and represent a threat.

[07] Clergy, including imams, have a responsibility to Australia and to ensure we have social cohesion.

[08] Omran: “I want to feel part of you. Only you can make me feel that. I paid my own ticket and came here on my own accord to build a better future in a country that believes in freedom”.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf

Maximum City - more excerpts ...

Here are some more quotes from Suketu Mehta's honest and refreshing look at life in Bombay. It really is a quality read.

The Bombay police see Muslims as criminals, much as some American police view African-Americans. (p46)

Bombay has one and a half times the proportion of Muslim residents as the country has overall; Muslims in Bombay comprise more than seventeen per cent of the city’s population. In India as a whole, Muslims number 120 million, twelve per cent of the general population. That makes India home to the second largest Muslim population in the world. Half a century after Partition, there are still more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. (p48)

The Muslims of Bombay are the most diverse group of the followers of Mohammad in the country. It’s not just the division between Shia and Sunni; there are Dawoodi Bohras, Ismailis, Deobandis, Barelvis, Memons, Mopalis, Ahmadiyyas, and so on. The Hindutva parties spread fear of the Muslim horde as if it were a monolith. The truth is that many of the groups, such as Deobandis and Barelvis, or the traditional and the reformist Bohras, often hate each other more passionately than they do the Hindus. But the riots united them. The Dawoodi Bohras of Malabar Hill discovered what they had in common with the Bihari Sunnis in the Madanpura slums: a very public questioning of their claim to be citizens of India. They discovered their biggest crime was that they were Muslims. (p49)

In the Bombay I grew up in, being Muslim or Hindu or Catholic was merely a personal eccentricity, like a hairstyle. (p54)

Excerpts - Maximum City

The following are excerpts from Suketu Mehta’s Maximum City: Bombay Lost And Found (2004) Review. Mehta is a New York based writer and journalist of Gujrati Indian origin.

Everything is recycled in this filthy country, which poisons its children, raising them on a diet of its own shit ... Breathing the air in Bombay now is the equivalent of smoking two and a half packets of cigarettes a day. The sun used to set into the sea; now it sets into smog. (p27)

A sign I see on the back of a truck says it all:

Sau me ek sau ed beimaan.
Phir bhi mera Bharat Mahaan.

101 out of 100 are dishonest.
Still my India is the best ...

This fucking city. The sea should rush in over these islands in one great tidal wave and obliterate it, cover it with water. It should be bombed from the air. Every morning I get angry. It is the only way to get anything done; people here respond to anger, are afraid of it. In the absence of money or connections, anger will do. I begin to understand the uses of anger as theatre – with taxi drivers, doormen, plumbers, government bureaucrats. Even my CD player in india responds to anger, physical violence; when a gentle press of the PLAY button fails to arouse it from its slumber, a hard smack across the side propels it into sound. (p28)

A city like Bombay, like New York, that is a recent creation on the planet and does not have a substantial indigenous population, is full of restless people. Those who have nt been at ease somewhere else. And unlike others who may have been equally uncomfortable wherever they come from, these people got up and moved. And as I have discovered, having once moved, it is difficult to stop moving. So it is that the Bombayites might dream of the West, not just for the riches that lie there but also for the excitement of moving somewhere again. (p29)

There is no land on which to build schools: no new ones have appeared in my area since I was a child. But the population of children has exploded. There is no place for all these new learners. They have to be registered at birth. ‘Is it difficult, getting a place for a child in school in Bombay?’ I ask the principal.

‘It’s like climbing Mount Everest.’ (pp30-31)

I see something new this time in India – single people in their thirties, even forties, unmarried by choice. One of the rakes uses the old line to explain why he won’t get married: ‘If you can get milk everyday, why buy the cow?’ The cow is a Bombabe in her thirties, a year or three away from her sell-by date. Successful in her career because she is single, desperately lonely only because of it, she is fair game for the married, the lesbians, the fat – anyone will hold her through the endless night. (p32)

NOTES: Between clerics and terrorists ...

Australian Islam is largely an ethno-religious phenomenon. Theological practice is tied to various cultures. Mosque liturgy is run on a combination of classical Arabic orthodoxy and ethnic and linguistic influences [e.g. Indonesian man who left tarawih at Redfern mosque after missing entire first rakaat before even placing his hands on his stomach and left in disgust].

In the post-7/7 environment, Muslim religious institutions and their leaders have been the subject of greater scrutiny by governments and media. This has led to the development of a mythology built around the generation of a uniform Muslim “community”. This mythology serves the interests of both governments and certain Muslim religious leaders.

Both governments and religious organisations have developed strategies to develop and reinforce Muslim monolith mythology. Certain media organisations whose editors (if not their owners) benefit from stoking the fires of cultural warfare, have also sought to intervene in this process.

Central argument: Projection of Muslim monolith is unhealthy for both Muslims themselves and for the broader Australian community. Why?

• It is dishonest and doesn’t reflect reality.
• It makes demonization easier.
• It tends to reinforce more conservative elements within religious circles and ignores those who regard themselves as Muslims for more cultural or ancestral reasons.
• It stifles debate and much-needed reform in Muslim societies.

Islam can be defined as a combination of four things:

* Religion/theology;
* Values;
* Cultures;
* Institutions.

We need a broader and more encompassing definition of Islam. I prefer to define Islam as the motivation that leads around 300,000 Australians to feel inclined to tick the “Muslim” box on their census forms. Many of these people, including the most observant, have little or no association with a mosque. This is especially the case with women.

My mother prays 5 times a day, yet the only affiliation she has is with membership of the Australian chapter of the Aligarh Muslim University alumni.

When Islam is defined broadly as what Muslims actually are (as opposed to what they perhaps should be), the immediate effect is to create an image of diversity. We are no longer “the Muslim community” but rather a number or cluster of groups who tick the same box.

If this really is Islam, we simply cannot speculate about its future unless we understand its present. But what research has been conducted by those claiming to speak for Muslims?

Given that our mosques are divided largely along ethnic and linguistic lines, what sense does it make in Australia to speak of Islam’s presence in Australia as a set of values or as some uniform theology?

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

Classic Peter Reuhl on the US Presidential primaries ...

Peter Reuhl is one of my favourite humorists. Some years back I walked past him at some conservative thinktank function whilst talking to my then-newly-"acquried" left-of-centre fiance. I'm still kicking myself for not introducing myself and shaking his hand. Reuhl has to be one of the funniest writers published in any Australian newspaper. "Jack The Insider" in The Australian doesn't even come close.

Here's some excerpts from Reuhl's column in The Australian Financial Review on Thursday 7 February 2008. The headline is It's wild, open and voters want blood. The subject is the US presidential election.

... American voters this year are one big raucous family that doesn't want to see the fight stop anytime soon. The Dubya years seem like a bad dream, but I just checked and the guy is actually still in office.

Here's how Reuhl describes Bush II:

... Dubya ... his ability to make people disagree with each other more than a bunch of cats stuffed in a trash bin.

And what happens when the electorate is angry?

When voters want blood, they come off in droves and they're making sure this year is turning beautifully ... ugly.

Here's how Reuhl rates Mike Huckabee's chances ...

Huckabee ... doesn't have a prayer (a little evangelical humour there) of getting the nomination but he's a Sir Joh-class troublemaker.

This election campaign thus far has furnished some important lessons.

And if we've learned anything from this campaign so far, it's that we haven't learned anything from this campaign.

Reuhl believes that the Rupublican rightwing might spoil it for McCain. And who are these people? What are they like?

... the screwballs in the Republican rightwing ... the religious freaks and the trailer-park trash segment ...

At the time, Hillary and Obama were still fighting for the support of registered Democrat voters. It was beginning to look ugly.

Class wars in the Democratic Party are always a hoot, a bit like watching Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton arguing over cup sizes.

Super Tuesday at the time looked like it was going to be good clean (or rather, dirty) fun ...

... looking like a Weight Watchers meeting by the time it's over. Watch and enjoy. We may never have this kind of fun again unless you believe in professional wrestling.

Priceless!

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

Fish short story writing competition ...

The closing date of the 15th Fish International Short Story Prize is 14 December 2008. You can apply online, and each entry will set you back £20 (which, in Australian dollars, means OUCH!). The benefits of entry including a cool first prize of £3,000. In the unlikely event that you win, you have to travel to the UK and collect the cheque.

The maximum word length is 5,000 words. You can find out more by clicking here. I'm still tossing up whether to enter.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

NDT Profile - New State MP for Ryde

The front page of the Northern District Times for Wednesday October 22 2008 screams out: "Dominator". Below is a photo of Victor Dominello, new state MP for Ryde, sitting on some steps holding a bottle of still water. He is suited for work, his bright red socks almost matching the red-tiled stairs and taking focus away from the pink tie.

"Labor annihilated as Ryde swings 23.4% to Liberals" is the NDT headline. Charis Chang opens with this paragraph:

Victor Dominello went back to West Ryde station this week to thank voters for his stunning victory in Saturday's Ryde by-election.

Some brief facts from the article:

[01] Dominello is 41 years old.

[02] He turned a 10.9% deficit to ALP into a 12.6 % margin for the Libs. The swing was 23.4%.

[03] The ALP failed to win a single booth.

[04] Nicole Campbell, the ALP candidate, is a sitting Ryde councillor.

[05] By the following Tuesday, Dominello had won 53.8% of the vote. Compare this with March 2007 state election when Vic Tagg won just under 12,000 votes compared to John Watkins' ~18.700 votes.

[06] Greens didn't preference anyone, increased their vote more than four-fold.

[07] Dominello's links to area go back to 1930's when his grandfather set up market gardens in the region. His father owned a fruit and vegetable shop in Eastwood.

[08] Dominello couldn't vote in by-election as he wasn't enrolled in seat.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

Notes on The Howard Years - Episode I

The following are some notes based on the extended interviews with various people relating to Pauline Hanson and John Howard's approach to dealing with her. Excerpts from these extended interviews appeared in the actual episode that went to air. The extended interviews can be viewed on the program website.

Head of DFAT on Hanson

[01] Both Mr Howard and his senior staffer Grahame Morris were shown “the thrust of the advice that was coming into the Foreign Ministry”. This advice included cables about the damage Pauline Hanson was doing to Australia’s reputation in Asia. What surprised and perturbed editorial writers and influential commentators across Asia was that Howard was not immediately condemning Hanson’s remarks on Asian immigration.

[02] Howard waited for 7 months before condemning and refuting Hanson’s views on a range of issues including immigration and foreign investment. This condemnation and rebuttal took place during a speech to the Asia Society in 1997. Both Trade Minister Tim Fischer (who had built up substantial contacts in Asia) and Alexander Downer were becoming increasingly disturbed at Howard’s refusal to condemn Hanson. They saw it as a mistake that Howard waited 7 months before dealing with the matter decisively.

[03] Hanson’s remarks and Howard’s refusal to condemn them were “causing Australia real harm in Asia”. There was a steady flow of cables and reports coming in from Australian embassies and high commissions about the Howard government’s refusal to distance itself from (if not condemn) Hanson.

[04] When Howard finally made “a very vigorous and strong statement” against Hanson in Mar 1997, Morris came upto head of DFAT and asked: “Are you happy now”. DFAT responds: “It was an excellent statement but it was 7 months too late!”

[05] It was over his solid refutation of Hanson that Downer was reprimanded for the first and only time by Howard. Downer opposed to Hanson right from the state. Not prepared to compromise. Neither was Fischer.

[06] PM had his own views about how to combat Hanson, which were not shared by his Trade and Foreign Affairs Ministers as well as other senior Ministers.

Peter Costello on Hanson

[07] Hanson’s constituency had a high rate of gun ownership. Hence her popularity as she was able to galvanise her core constituency with her other pet issues on immigration and indigenous issues. This gave her a head of steam and improved her popularity. This gave voice to what Costello describes as Hanson’s “anti-Canberra, anti-elite, anti-special welfare campaign”.

[08] Costello wasn’t in Parliament for Hanson’s maiden speech but he was told about it immediately. Costello says some of her comments (e.g. about fat-cat bureaucrats) were well within the bounds of mainstream politics and debate. But her attacks on Aborigines and Aboriginal welfare were way outside bounds.

[09] It’s important to remember that the Liberal Party had disendorsed Hanson for making these kinds of remarks. It was the right decision for the Party to make.

[10] Costello was surprised with just how popular Hanson was becoming. He soon concluded that it “became clear that we had to take her on.”

[11] “Footage on TV of Rastafarian demonstrators jostling this immaculately coiffered lady helped her enormously. She looked moderate compared to these people who looked like extremists.”

[12] “If not giving someone oxygen puts ‘em out, it’s right. But after a while if you don’t give them oxygen and the start flaming brightly, that’s the point at which you call for the fire extinguisher ... to meet her claims head on and disprove them.”

[13] “She had the most bizarre economic policies that would have destroyed our economy”. Costello believed Howard should have taken Hanson on earlier, especially when it came to preferences and putting Hanson last on the ballot paper.

[14] Howard was ambivalent about Hanson. Howard wanted to open the door to freedom of speech, but wasn’t prepared for the Hansonite variety of extremism. Howard’s rhetoric of “lifting the pall of censorship” effectively gave a green light to extremists, and was the wrong approach. This was the wrong rhetoric given in a speech in Qld at a time when Hanson was all fired up.

[15] Howard’s ambivalence toward Hanson was perhaps due to his feeling he’d been wrongly treated when he made his comments in Asian immigration in 1988. When she got onto comments on Aboriginal welfare, Aboriginal special programs and race, she wasn’t exercising freedom of speech but rather being divisive “likely to inspire division in the community.”

[16] Costello announced on the Sunday before the budget that he would be putting Hanson last in his own seat of Higgins. Howard telephoned him, was very upset. Accused Costello of trying to pre-empt the decision on preferencing One Nation. Howard wanted to keep the option open, but Costello thought any such preferencing would be morally and politically wrong.

Alexander Downer on Hanson

[17] Hanson was beaten up by media, ALP and political left as a means of punishing John Howard which was disgraceful given that the Libs had made the decision to dis-endorse her.

[18] As foreign minister, Downer thought Howard’s position eventually and inevitably became unsustainable.

[19] Hanson painted as some kind of SS guard when all she really was was “a simple woman articulating a prejudiced point of view”. It’s the kind of view you hear in all different parts of Australia, If you’ve never heard that view, you must be a hermit.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

Notes on The Howard Years - Episode II

[01] “That night was certainly a roller coaster ride”. Howard had 2 drinks after they won the 1998 Federal Election.

[02] Episode 2 entitled “Whatever It Takes”, which also happens to be the title of Graham Richardson’s autobiography.

[03] Howard felt the election had given him a mandate for tax reform despite the government gaining less than 50% of the popular vote.

[04] In his victory speech, Howard committed himself to Aboriginal reconciliation. Costello was surprised by this.

[05] Howard also mentioned Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, a Costello opponent, in his victory speech for Kennett’s alleged contribution to helping the government win on tax reform. Costello was clearly insulted by this.

[06] Tasmanian Senator Brian Harridine rejected GST. Costello had approached him and tried desperately to convince him, and couldn’t notice that Harridine’s objections were fundamental. Costello was also sent into convince Democrats leader Meg Lees.

[07] GST was “hard to sell in a policy sense but easy to sell in a practical sense.” (Costello)

[08] Whilst negotiating GST, Howard allowed Democrats leadership into the Melbourne cabinet room. Dems wanted food exempted, but Costello said that practically implementing this would have been impossible. Peter Reith disagreed, urging Costello to agree to exemption.

[09] At one stage, a Democrat staffer wanted a cup of herbal tea. Government staffers, including Max Moore-Wilton, went running around searching for the tea!

[10] Costello wasn’t happy with the watered-down negotiated GST. Peter Reith said Howard effectively ran the negotiations.

[11] Alexander Downer said Howard felt more at home with domestic issues than with foreign affairs.

[12] Interviewees included former Indonesian President Habibie and his adviser Dewi Fortuna Anwar. Habibie said he wanted to resolve the East Timor issue finally instead of leaving it for one of his successors to sort out. He suggested some kind of special autonomy for the province.

[13] Howard wanted to change Australia’s East Timor policy. He and Downer drafted a letter to Habibie which supported Habibie’s autonomy push but also insisted Habibie allow East Timorese the option of holding a referendum on independence after a decade or so. Tim Fischer said that the “most important letter ever written by the Howard government never went to cabinet.”

[14] Habibie read letter signed by Howard very differently to how Howard envisaged it would be read. Habibie was very upset. Habibie felt Howard was trying to force him to make quick decisions. Habibie decided to make an even quicker decision, holding a referendum within 6 months on the issue of independence.

[15] There was a violent reaction from pro-Jakarta militias, who went on the rampage under the eyes of the TNI who allegedly did nothing to stop them.

[16] Howard met with Habibie in Bali, and suggested the referendum go ahead under the direction and supervision of UN peacekeepers. Habibie said this would have proved an insult to the TNI and have been domestically untenable. The militias were still rampaging through Dili with the TNI even accused of participating. Australian public opinion was hardening, with Joe Hockey admitting there was even pressure on the government to invade Indonesia if that was the only way to stop the violence.

[17] Howard contacted Clinton who said he wasn’t prepared to support a UN peacekeeping force in East Timor with US ground troops. However, the US would lend diplomatic muscle, and Clinton declared that Indonesia’s access to international assistance would be conditional upon how it responded to the violence in East Timor.

[18] Habibie soon announced that Indonesia would agree to an international peacekeeping force in East Timor. Australia would lead that force under the command of Howard’s handpicked Major General Cosgrove. The first contingent arrived on 20 September 1999. As they approached, they noticed an Indonesian submarine entering Dili harbour with a capacity to destroy the Australian ships. War could have eventuated with Indonesia.

[19] Liberal pollster Mark Textor said that East Timor showed Howard as a national security leader.

[20] Reconciliation continued to be “an issue that dogged us throughout the whole government” (Costello). Joe Hockey said: “I don’t know why we didn’t apologise. It was an instinctive thing to do”. Yet Howard insisted that “I don’t think the current generation can take responsibility for the deeds of a previous generation”. [As if saying sorry was the same as claiming responsibility.]

[21] There was to be a march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in favour of reconciliation. Howard insisted he didn’t want to walk. Costello suggested that all Cabinet join in the walk, saying that 17 front benchers walking with the crowd would send a powerful symbol. [Howard never liked walking unless pushed. Which is exactly what happened in the end.]

To be continued ...

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf