Talking about management, it is about time our OLO managers brought in essayists up to date with the news, especially concerning the now scary Middle East problem, as noted below.

One wonders why the Clinton's are again courting Israel after all these years.

Patrick Tyler's "A World of Trouble", though not yet finished, so far says how Bill Clinton when US President let himself be manipulated by Israel's Netanyahu, and now Hillary is foolishly playing the same game right now, as shown recently on Sky TV.

Barak Obama sadly will now not only again enter Tyler's World of Trouble through having to flirt with the Clinton's, but could mean our cocky nasty little Israel is again dominating the Middle East future.

According to Martin Woolcott, a 'Guardian' journo', there is already a rush to get Tyler's coming book onto Obama's table, a book which will keep insisting that foolish US decisions all along have let Israel not only call the wrong tune in the Middle East, but according to our predictions, might easily cause Iran to look east, Russia and even China possibly backing Iran.

Going by the foolish way America let Israel target Syria earlier, as if Israel is part of a US plan to prevent war, there is little doubt that Israel also has loaded nuclear rockets pointed towards Iran.

The above is certainly a crucial testing time for Obama, and going by the original tone of the millions who supported him, he'd be better to look to them than to proven international failures like the Clintons.

Hoping for more interest in the more important world problems,

Regards, BB, Buntine, WA.

The author makes some very good and important points. It is hard to understand if you are not a member of a sometimes persecuted minority group, just how insiduous the use of language can be and how, often completely inwittingly, writers and editors can end up reinforcing dangerous stereotypes.

However, I suspect that a lot of readers will immediately reject the point this article is trying to make due to the inclusion of certain trigger words and names (e.g. colonial conquest, Edward Said and Noam Chomsky). Unfortunate as it may be, such terms automatically cause brains to shut off and emotions to take over.

I agree with the author that the media is biassed against Muslims.
It is wrong to point out the errors of one religion while glossing over those of another.
In a rational society we would insist that all religious beliefs be evidence based.
And yes I hear your rejoinder; a belief that is evidence based is not a belief but a fact.

Even if one has a rudimentary knowledge of Australian history then it can be easily identified that many non-anglo groups have had to struggle to have their concerns heard and prejudices overcome.

The religious group into which most Australians classify themselves, Catholicism, is and has been fair game to malign in the media for decades.

It could easily be argued that this has much more to do will the origin of its supports (Ireland initially and more recently Mediterranean regions) then the more recently exposed insidious abuse cases.

Catholic leaders condemned the IRA bombings in Northern Ireland and London as vocally as they opposed conscription years beforehand.

Secular Australia needs this country’s Muslim leaders to stand up and vocalise their positions on many important issues regardless of the criticism that may be dished out from both the media and from within.

David Chibo is starting behind the 8 ball in claiming that Australia’s media is anti-Middle East and Islam. People will automatically say: “He would say that, being of Iraqi background.”

Others would say: “Well, hell David, isn’t the Middle East and Islam anti-Australian? Are we not engaged militarily with the US in Iraq and against Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan? Is Australia not at risk, like other Western democracies, from Middle Eastern terror? Have we not recently needed to lock up some of these characters for a good part of their lives?”

Still others, who know about Edward Said, would just switch off.

David still insists on talking about ‘racism’ in relation to the thuggery perpetrated by Middle Eastern youths at Cronulla. How is that for bias? What could be more racist than Middle Eastern culture and Islamic separatism! Not to ignore Western racism in some quarters, but let’s keep a balance and not go back to the bad white man nonsense.

David is also upset about the occupation by the US of parts of the Middle East. Well, tough David. What about the occupation of Middle Easterners in no-go areas in Australia? They were brought here by our own idiot politicians, sure; but the licence taken by many, many people from the Middle East is insulting and threatening to Australia.

“The Australian Middle Eastern and Islamic community has never been able to aptly express or manifest this alleged bias...” says David. They have never ‘expressed’ anything except complaints. They keep to themselves. They want their own rules. They are separatists. No wonder they don’t get a ‘good press’.

As for the reporting differences between stories about Taj Din al-Hilali and Pastor Danny Nalliah, the latter was prosecuted for simply repeating a passage from the Koran, and al-Halali continued to run off at the mouth.

Perhaps nothing good is said about Middle Easterners and Muslims because they blame everyone else for their problems – a good example of this is seen in this article.

The author does make some good points. The way incidents are reported makes a difference - when authors only use examples of behaviour which highlight the bad behaviour of "the other" we have cause for legitimate concern that they are running an agenda seperate to the stated issue.

But then I see the author refering to the Cronulla "riots" which would suggest a number of riots rather than what appears to be one drawn out episode of ugly mob violence.

Is he describing the very ugly mob violence as one riot and the violence by "middle eastern" youths as another or is this as often happens an attempt to portray that there was a series of riots by the anti-middle eastern crowd without reference to the actions which preceeded the Cronulla riot and which followed it?

I got the impression reading the piece that the reference to the racism of the Cronulla riots was targetted at the anti-muslim crowd and ignored the rest. Is the author playing the same game he laments or have I misread his intent?

R0bert

the thing which annoys me about people called Leigh is the way they always cavalierly use "they", as if it actually means something.

The author of this article needs to read up more on Islam. The "West" (Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Pagans, Mushrik, Zorostrians, blah blah blah, and even some Muslims) now know about Islam, and are disgusted by the doctrines it teaches.

Where did Christ teach about the doctrine of Jihad or Fitna? If he did, his followers would also lose friends and alienate people.

The author should stop apologising for a deranged divisive ideology and start getting over it.

I'll concede that the Western media is biased when reporting the ME, however, let's keep some perspective.
The author mentions, the "Western concept of The Other". The concept of "The Other" is not exclusively a Western idea as the author's words imply, "Moslems and Kufars" come to mind. Isn't the West,in fact, progressive, democratic and relatively, enlightened, I'd rather be the Other in a Western country than in an Islamic one.

I think the previous commenter (mac) has hit upon the nutshell. It is much easier to be the "Other" in a Western country, than it is a Muslim-dominated country.

After all, when was the last time in Australia for example, was a Muslim person murdered because they did not accept Christianity or Judaism? (for the reverse siution in Yemen see http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.0.3063661435)

Or indeed, when was the last time in Australia 20 Christian lawyers appeared in court arguing in favour of the death sentence for a man who had the temerity to leave Christianity for the Islamic faith? (for the reverse situation in Egypt see http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025027.php)

The more anyone looks into the treatment of minorities throughout the Middle East and Islamic world, the less valid Edward Said's theory of Orientalism becomes. Because it is overwhelmed by the stench of Islamic supremacism which sees all non-believers as either dhimmis or people even further beyond that pale. And the Cronulla riot, is nothing more than a storm in an eggcup compared to the malelovent and often violent anti-Other practices throughout the Middle East and Islamic world.

Perhaps one might consider that religious attitudes change and what one can think of as integral to a religion is merely where it is at a particular time.

In the 15th century many Jews fleeing the Christian Inquisition found refuge in the relatively more tolerant Islamic world. Currently some refugees from the intolerant Taliban come to Australia, If they come as boat people they can be put in detention camps.

In regards to identification when George Speight and his followers occupied parliament house in Fiji and turfed out the democratically elected prime minister of Indian origin Christian groups sang hymns on the parliament lawn. Speight's coup was backed by Seventh Day Adventist and Methodist churches. I don't remember Speight and his followers being referred to as Christian terrorists. I thought that was an appropriate designation.

You'd better wake up Leigh that we are by far the worst offenders because it was the West who trod all over those countries with steel-studded military boots in the colonial days.

As a historian it thus sometimes makes one snigger to hear people like you Leigh, only ever quote recent history, making one wonder if our OLO was truly honest, it would sometimes someway suggest that us smart-arse Westerners study our history books much more.

Finally, could also suggest that with Hillary Clinton lately flirting with Netanaya, as hubby Bill foolishly did years back, sadly for future peace, Obama looks really in trouble.

bushbred,

"we are by far the worst offenders",nonsense, I suggest you consult some history references yourself.



Of course the Western colonialists committed crimes against those they colonised, however ME societies were still in the Middle Ages when the first European imperialists arrived, whose fault is that? I'll quote some not so recent history, until the 18th century Eastern Europe was menaced by the Ottomans and Moslem slavers from North Africa raided as far as northern Europe, they were not suppressed until the 19th century. Some historians calculate that they took a million Europeans as slaves, interesting?

Smart-arse Westerner.

Bushbred,

Sniggering is something to be proud of now is it? I suppose it makes you feel superior, you poor old fool. I’ll bet the locals in Buntine cross the street when they see you coming.

I don't share your obsession with Obama, but I was very interested to read an article a couple of days ago about his connection with the Weathermen. He should be much more concerned about that than “flirting” with Hilary Clinton.

I couldn’t work out who this “Netanaya” was for a while, but I guessed you meant Netanyahu, leader of Likud. Your essays must have been a scream: like the ‘schoolboy howlers’, only yours would have been the ‘geriatric howlers’.

PS – ‘Weathermen’ has nothing to do with climate change.

We talk about Australia being a land of the "Fair
go" for all - but I'm starting to see - that some
of us are very selective in whom we give a "Fair
Go" to. Right? Newcomers to this land have always
found it tough in the beginning. Especially newcomers
who came from - different linguistic or ethnically distinct
groups. But with time, and the entry of these groups
into the mainstream - prejudice somehow became eroded.
Take groups like the Greek and Italian communities, then
of course there was the hostility against the Vietnamese.
Now - its the turn of anyone of Middle Eastern background.

As Eva Sallis points out in her article,"Australians All,"
first published in 'The New York Times, Dec. 2005,
updated Nov. 2006, and I quote: "Like America, we have new
anti-terrorism legislation, first passed in 2002, then
significantly strengthened last year. It is legislation that
inevitably validates broader community mistrust of Arab and
Muslim Australians. Australians are often fearful of
terrorism and terrorists, and fearful of the threat of
invasion from the north, yet the government has done
nothing substantive to allay these fears and to increase
knowledge and appreciation of Australians of Middle Eastern
background..."

What we need is not to tar everyone with the same brush.
Not to blame the majority for the actions of a small
minority. We have to remember that it is a small
minority of fundamentalists that perform acts of violence.
We need more education and definitely less fear mongering...
And we need to remember- this is Australia, a country
that believes in giving everyone a "Fair Go!"

The media and talkback radio jocks - should remember that
ethos also. After all it's only:

1) A small number of Mulsims who are terrorists.
2) And priests who have committed sexual abuse.
3) And men/women who abuse their wives/husbands.

We who live in a civilized society should realize that the
poor behaviour of a few does in no way accurately reflect
the character of the many.

Bushbred

You need to study other history books besides those of the smart-arse westerners. Study the history books of the smart-arse easterners and you will find that more Muslims have been killed by Muslims than anyone else during the last 1450 years. Do you know that this is still going on? All a Muslim has to do is call the other a heretic or sympathiser and the divisiveness and killing starts. And in case you don't know, this doctrine is called Jihad.

Foxy

I agree with most of what you say, but the doctrine of Jihad expounded by Muhammed (who Muslims elevate to holiness) has nothing to do with a "far go". That is why those who choose to follow Muhammed's teachings will always be viewed with suspicion and scorn in a country that offers a "far go". They alienate themselves.

Dear Bassam,

Thank You for at least agreeing with something
of what I'm saying.

Of course we can't change the views of fundamentalists
in any religion, not only Muslim. The point that I was
trying to make however was, - not to judge all Muslims
by the actions of the extremists. Imagine how difficult
it must be to have to live defensively - when the rest
of the Australian community is highly prejudiced against
you. You wouldn't be able to cope very well or identify
yourself in all that negative space that is being created
around you. You would become alienated from the mainstream,
and that could end up being a disaster for all concerned.

We've got a lot of work to do in this country, and I
certainly don't have all the answers, but I do feel that
hatred or fear mongering doesn't help.

It damages us all. And I know we can all do better.

You are no historian, Bassam, otherwise you would not preach that we should make war on the Islamists because of their religous beliefs.

Not many of us are in love with Islamists, Bassam, but like a university lecturer you must try as much as you can to stay middle of the road.

The way the world is at present, hatred from us Westerners these days will not get us anywhere much.

In fact, a few admittances to the Islamics what rotten mongrels we've also been even in recent history, not to even mention our practices during colonialism, not very much different to the way the Romans carried on.

I ain't changin', Leigh, cos' reckon I understand the Middle East problem much better than someone like you who still follows the wornout Bush Routine.

In fact, my concept like my writing, is admittedly crude, and thus being a great grandfather, have found the best way to solve family arguments is to try to admit one is wrong occasionally, which in politics Mr Smart Arse, means the age-old concept of Sharing the Blame, which with the Middle East problem should certainly place over-cocky little Israel in a back seat with Bush, where she belongs.

From BB, Buntine, WA

bushbred,

" a few admittances to the Islamics ..." yes, however that also requires an admittance on the part of the Islamic world what rotten mongrels they were to the West for 1,000 years from the 7th century,Moslems, like the Japanese, suffer from selective amnesia. The West left the Moslem world far behind, otherwise they would still be a menace. I agree we should leave them alone and I certainly don't support Israel's aggression.

Bushbread

"You are no historian, Bassam, otherwise you would not preach that we should make war on the Islamists because of their religious beliefs."

If being a historian means projecting your own vain imaginings onto others then it is just as well I am not a historian. Nowhere did I preach war on Islamists because of their religious beliefs. Not only are you narrow minded, you are also a liar. But that's ok, I understand, just keep driving down the middle of the road, you wise old fence sitter.

Foxy

I have family who are Lebanese and friends who are Indonesian. In no way do I want them harmed or feared. I have simply come to understand how Islam causes their suffering. By being aware of what Islam is will bring about the relief. You say yourself, there is a lot of work to do in this country and that we don't have all the answers, that is why I am trying something. Even though I am constantly called a racsist, Islamophobe, bigot, warmonger or kafir, I still feel I should make people aware of Islam. What do you think Foxy? Is this a bad thing? People trying to bring about this awareness? Would the cessation of discussing Islam change anything, like what the UN have done by making it illegal to criticize Islam. Like what many OLO contributors do here, that is stifle debate by calling people Islamophobic or racsist.

Oh bollocks!

At the time Hilaly made his comments he was Grand Mufti of Australia and Imam of the Lakemba Mosque, the largest mosque in Australia. He was, if not THE voice of Australian Islam certainly a MAJOR voice. When the grand mufti speaks it is reasonable to consider him a voice of Islam.

By contrast Nalliah is a "null." Were it not for the publicity he gained when the Victorian Government tried to censor him he would be a minus. His comments are good for a laugh; but no one in their right minds imagines Nalliah speaks for any major branch of Christianity in Australia.

I'll match your "oh bollocks!" and raise you a "selective memory".

You must have missed all of the media during the Hilali blow up, which were full of muslim commentators pointing out that the "grand mufti" represented no-one but the members of his mosque, let alone every muslim in Australia.

Danny Nalliah would no doubt tell you he is a great Christian authority, but it ain't necessarily so.

Sancho, if you look at the ABC's Sunday Profile website for March 11, 2007 they describe Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali as "Australia's most senior Muslim cleric" - http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s1868267.htm. And the website AussieMuslims.NET describes the position that Sheik al-Hilali had from 1989 until mid-2007 of mufti, as being "the most senior Islamic spiritual leader" in Australia. Therefore at the time The Australian ran the story that is mentioned in this article (October 26, 2006), it would be quite reasonable to describe Sheik al-Hilali as being a Muslim leader. And it has nothing to do with any Orientalist framework that David Chibo might want to ascribe to it.

People reading the article in The Brisbane Times would know that someone described as a "pastor" would be a Christian minister. But to describe Danny Nalliah as a Christian leader would be quite laughable as his sect is at best insignificant.

You don’t have to change, Bushbred, but you seem think that you can change other people. You say that you know more about the Middle East than ‘someone like (me)’. I say you know nothing. I don’t follow any “Bush Routine”, whatever that is, and your writing is certainly “crude”, as you say; certainly too crude to convince anyone that you are educated, and certainly too crude to pass any tertiary course without a lot of help from someone else.

Perhaps all your ‘learning’ and knowledge is in your poor, addled mind.

I am also a great-grandfather, and if you think your grandchildren and great grandchildren are doing anything but humour and old man, you are greatly mistaken. The young have to, and will, work out society and life for themselves.

You don’t seem to know much about anything, Bushbred. As a “SmartArse”, I know that you are full of the proverbial, and you “sharing the blame” would be totally at odds with your arrogance and ignorance.

It is said that: ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’. You are an excellent example of that old adage. You have just soaked up a little of someone else’s Leftist rubbish to pretentiously parrot, in the belief that people will be fooled by your claims to being an “historian”.

You are far too silly to bother with, and are now on my ‘ignore as a crackpot’ list. Most posters seem to ignore your rambling, and I’m joining them.

And if you look here, Savage Pencil...
http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s1060425.htm

Here...
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1233723.htm

And here...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/letters/sheikh-hilali-why-he-must-go/2006/10/27/1161749315684.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

...you'll see that muslims are by no means united in support of Hilali.

If George Pell made a provocative statement about Islamic women, do you doubt that the Arab media would stir the pot by casting him as Australia's sole Christian leader?

It suits xenophobes and the media to have a chief baddy to home in on, even if it means excluding other points of view in a debate. As I said, it ain't necessarily so.

For Leigh

Are you OK, mate, certainly I must have really hurt your feelings by the tirade you fired back at me.

Do you do these things at home, for I was worried about your wife, kids and grandkids.

All I could do after the bombshell was look for any of your beliefs that are separate to mine.

Well, first was your implication that I'm a lefty possibly that you are a righty not so much a Nazi, but conservatively-minded.

Your mentioning in an earlier thread that you are not much for Obama also means that you could have been sympathetic for Bush - and indeed which has me wondering what you want for the future of our world right now.

Further, I must say as with you, I have had similar problems with Paul'l especially regarding my anger concerning modern Israel with its nuclear arsenal that Arabic nations are not allowed to have.

Also my anger at America for interfering too much in the UN, which was originally devised to only be managed by multipower, not singular power, the way Britain ruined the League of Nations and as America has pretty well ruined the UN.

Could go on, Leigh, but was wondering if you should see your specialist about this problem, and I really don't mind you calling me, that rambling old bastard from Buntine, because in my last year with the Mandurah Golf Club only relegated to playing nine holes by myself, I was called an old bastard for not getting a move on.

Trouble with Buntine, there is nothing much left right now, having been only a typical railway town of the steam-train days, with not even a wheat-bin now there.

Still not too worried about myself, only about yourself, mate,

Regards - BB, WA.

There is much too little proper analysis of Australian media's reporting on the middle east conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and on Islam so it's very good to read David Chibo's piece.

I studied communications at a Sydney university in the late 1980s and undertook a comparison of European (mainly Nazi German) media coverage of Jewish issues in the 1930 with Australian media coverage of Palestinian and Islamic issues in the 1980s.

The results were frightening; the one-dimensional, racist portrayal of Jews in the 1930s was almost identical to the contemporary Australia media's portrayal of Muslims even down to shared caricatures of huge-nosed, money-grubbing evil looking menaces in the 30s German media and the 80s Australian media.

I am heartedly sick of the fact that Muslims and Arabs specifically appear to be fair game in a way that no other ethnic group in Australia is. The sort of blanket racist remarks that can be made in respectable company against Arabs/Muslims would not be tolerated if the word African or Jew or Asian replaced Arab/Muslim.

If we want to encourage a modern, pluralistic Islam to flourish in Australia the last thing we should be doing is denigrating Islam and Arabs. You wanna encourage sympathy with the Islamist cause from young Australian Muslims/Arabs then continue to marginalise these young Muslims and Arabs by spewing your hate-filled lies about Islam and make no effort to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and the extreme radicals of the Islamist movement. Well done David and keep up the good work.

Bushbred,

You don't reply to my postings (sigh) perhaps I'm not rude enough,as I've asked you before,on another thread, please describe your qualifications in history, if you're self-taught I don't mind, knowledge and capacity are more important. I'm annoyed with the ad hominem arguments and the general sniping back and forth, which I think from memory, you were instrumental in initiating.

This is a disappointing article. I have worked and travelled in Iran, Kashmir and Morocco and visited a couple of other Muslim countries, as well as read exentsively on what is happening in the middle east.

The author David Chibo uses the framework of Orientalism to construct a whiny, victim-politics view of mass media coverage of violent crime, misogyny and terrorism involving people of various levels of association with Islam. Unfortunately Orientalism is explicitly NOT about truth, but 'truth' - a way of reframing events for political advantage in the Western media and academic value system.

I understand well his frustration at the negative reporting being myself part of a subculture that is a target of politically correct media contempt, but my advice to him is respond in an adult fashion, recognising the extensive attempts of the media to be fair, and that justice is in the criticisms due to the actual crimes committed by terrorists, wife-beaters, sister-murderers and outright gangsters who happen to use Islam to design and justify their horrible crimes.

I saw in Iran how proud, well-educated people had had great injustice done to their reputation in international media. When they incarcerate or execute the mullahs who created human rights horrors against Sunni muslims, women, Bahais, Jews, Christians, children, writers, and the educated class, I will know their honour vindicated.

In short David, its real. Live with it. Protest the murderers, as well as the bias, and help defeat them both. I support you in that.

Media bias in all things is to be condemned.

What I don't understand is that the author is from a persecuted minority currently being killed or involuntarily deported from Iraq.

Now, bearing in mind the Christian maxim of 'turn the other cheek', I am not sure whether to congratulate the author on his fair mindedness or stupidity/insensitivity to his own community.

As for Pastor Danny representing Christianity cf a grand mufti, and noting Sancho's reference to Cardinal Pell, it may be of interest that the current NSW Premier is on Hansard as saying:

"I think Cardinal Pell ...can invite further comparisons with that serial boofhead Sheik Al Hilali."

Now that's some unbiased talk I would like from a democratically elected Muslim..

I don't get it , I mean why should I have to forfeit my const. rights of free speech simply to avoid insulting a Muslim ?

If I feel uncomfortable with some aspect of Muslim Law , why shouldn't I say so ?

Racism is alive in every country , OZ is no exception , although I reckon we are more into honesty and freedom than most .

Why did our Moslem's abort their homeland ?

Were our Moslem's baited into coming here ?

Why did they come here ? Was it to impact on some imbalance ? Were they charged with a duty to round up the wayward sons and daughters of the 18 th century Cameliers ?

Will they get upset if I inform them that when I see someone , possibly male or Female , could be Isama Bin Laden how would you know , fully covered head to foot ware totally unidentifiable ...that my skin crawls . I don't like it . But to avoid being branded a raciest , the French did recently but I didn't .

What amazes me is the utterances of some of the Mufti's , they leave me stunned on human rights issues especially , here they represent the crudest form of humanity imaginable . Female emancipation indeed .

In reply to Sancho on Monday at 11:57:10 AM.

I am fully aware that there has been controversy or dissension over Sheik Taj El-Din Al-Hilaly's role or title within the Muslim community. But again, as that ABC Sunday Profile of March 7, 2004 notes: "Sheik Hilaly is known as the Mufti of Australia, the pre-eminent post in the Australian Moslem world". Are you suggesting that the ABC too is part of a xenophobic alliance gainst Muslims in this country?

You also suggest that, "if George Pell made a provocative statement about Islamic women, do you doubt that the Arab media would stir the pot by casting him as Australia's sole Christian leader?" Well, I'm sure that the Arab (or Malaysian) media would do this but how exactly does this help your case? They would probably do it if Danny Nalliah made such statements but they would be even more untrue.

The main problem with this article is that there's really no such thing as an Australian Christian community, whereas despite its diversity (I am acknowledging it here), there does appear to be an Australian Muslim community. It's referred to by the academic Abdullah Saeed in the Sunday Profile program of March 7, 2004: "I think any religious leader who cannot bring together the entire Muslim community behind him on important issues of interest to the community can be quite problematic for the community".

But George Pell and especially Danny Nalliah cannot be seen as religious leaders who could bring together an entire Christian community on "important issues of interest to (that) community". Because that community doesn't exist ... in general, people in Australia who are Christians, or of Christian background, live lives that are not solely shaped by their religious belief.

Lastly, why should "baddies" - if you want to describe Sheik Hilaly like that - be let off the hook? Your argument almost seems to be that the media shouldn't report any noxious acts or statements by people of Islamic faith because it only encourages xenophobes. Gee, that's great news for the women of Pakistan's Swat Valley, isn't it?

savage pencil, i don't believe there's an australian muslim community any more than there's an australian christian community. you quote saeed, but i'm pretty sure i could find similar quotes from christian "representatives".

leigh, i have no idea what you know or don't know. and i don't want to interfere in your fight with bushbred. but you may wish to avoid referencing stale republican swill, such as the obama-weathermen sleaze. it's gratuitous, and it just makes you look dumb.

Bushbasher - I quoted Abdullah Saeed, who is an academic and not a Muslim "representative". But it was this academic who spoke of a Muslim community and as he is the chair of Arab and Islamic Studies at Melbourne University and the author of the book "Islam in Australia", I think I might willingly concede that he has more authority in this matter than you. And reading back through the transcript of his interview with Geraldine Doogue, I think you will find that he mentions the word "commmunity" in regard to Muslims in Australia at least 10-12 times!!

savage garden, i stand semi-corrected on referring to saeed as a representative of muslims in australia. but you quote him:

"I think any religious leader who cannot bring together the entire Muslim community behind him on important issues of interest to the community can be quite problematic for the community".

he may not be playing the role of religious leader, but he seems to be taking on some role as cultural representative.

be that as it may, i still have absolutely no clue what saeed means by "muslim community", nor how he can possibly expect any religious leader to play the role he suggests is required.

i think also whether or not such a religious leader is possible is largely off the point. i think the much more important point is that, whatever "muslim community" means, nasty mysogynistic twits like hilaly do not automatically represent members of this community. (e.g. any more than rule-bound homophobic bigots like pell automatically represent a given christian, or even a given catholic).

whatever "muslim community" may mean, it is no excuse for the nasty, obtuse, insulting use of "they" by posters such as leigh. this group guilt stuff is silly and boring.

Dear BushBonker, it's Savage Pencil not savage garden if you please!!

Also, if you were going to be truthful, I think you stand 100% corrected not "semi-corrected". And to repeat again for your benefit, Abdullah Saeed was speaking to Geraldine Doogue on Sunday Profile in his role as an academic. And it's on that basis that I will take him as an authority when he speaks of community in regards to Muslims in this country

dear pencil, sorry for the misnaming. honest, and odd, mistake.

you want me to stand 100% corrected? if you want, ok. i regard it as minor. you seem to be using point-scoring to ignore the substance of my post.

Leigh, I have been in two minds waiting for your answer concerning my query about how well you are, after your nasty estimation about my true character.

As a matter of fact, Leigh, I wondered why our OLO bosses did not get onto you, knowing that I could have you up for "Character Assassination".

Further, I must say that you have not been the only one, in fact, another two.

One not so bad being Paul'l, but bad enough, and the other a similar type to you, Leigh, and I wonder sometimes if it was you under another Code-name.

Now must say Paul'l does not like me because he says I hate Israel.

But as I keep telling him, I don't hate Jews, because some were with us in WW2, and we got on well boozing together and so on. Also got on well with Jew woolbuyers even when arguing on wool prices.

But what I do not like as a historian is the way Palestinian Arabs seem to be regarded as low-life by the Israelies, when the Israelies obviously as seemingly more intelligent should know better.

Furthermore, the Israelies should have known better than to go militarily atomic, made worse by the way they treated Mordecai who obviously to our minds seemed the most intelligent.

There is nothing left-wing about this type of thinking, either, Leigh, as I've told Paul'l, but straight down the centre.

But just be careful about predicating another's character, Leigh, or you might find yourself behind bars.

But I must say though hurt, I've no hate for you, just wondering what sort of family man you are?

Hope you get better,

BB, WA

For Cam?

Must say I am not very happy to have to do this, but here goes to prove my status -

From Curtin University, as part of a mixed Post Grad Social Science Diploma, including Australian political history, American political history, Indian political history, and general global history and politics.

The 'A Land in Need' trilogy on WA history since the first landing, becoming a local good seller, and still to be found on Google.

After the above was asked by the Mandurah U3A, to take groups on the History of Western Philosophy and Science, taking over from Professor Mahony who unfortunately had died, myself taking such groups for 13 years until my wife died nearly three years ago.

Must say the material for the just above, was thankfully supplied free from Murdoch University.

Not bad, I might say from one whose first job after being pulled out of school in 1932 was driving a wagon.team.

I'm not sure about you, Cam, but it seems the ones who want to get rid of me are mostly those who don't like me trying to be a bit kinder to the Arabs et al.

But all I can say, if Middle East problems do cause a major war, you can bet your life, an over-cocky
little nuclear Israel could very much help start it.

BushBasher - I haven't ignored the substance of your post but can I point out to you that the fact that I had to correct you on several occasions means that you had pretty much ignored the substance of my initial post.

Your point was that: "I think the much more important point is that, whatever "Muslim community" means, nasty mysogynistic twits like Hilaly do not automatically represent members of this community. (e.g. any more than rule-bound homophobic bigots like Pell automatically represent a given Christian, or even a given Catholic). Whatever "Muslim community" may mean, it is no excuse for the nasty, obtuse, insulting use of "they" by posters such as Leigh. This group guilt stuff is silly and boring".

OK, I will agree whole-heartedly that group guilt stuff is silly and in my opinion, nasty as well. However I think that the Orientalist theme that David Chibo has pursued in this article is a very weak or one-sided argument, especially when compared to the nasty group guilt stuff that is espoused by opinion leaders in much of the Middle East against Jews and other non-Muslims. As you probably already know, there you will find some of the nastiest anti-Semitic rants that have been uttered since the downfall of the Third Reich. And let's not forget what is said about or done to homosexuals in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Also, what Chibo's article overlooks is that Danny Nalliah was basically "flayed alive" in many of the comments that The Brisbane Times allowed readers to post on their website in regard to this story. While a few at the beginning were supportive of him, after that the comments were running at more than 90% against him with viewpoints like this - "Comments are in extreme bad taste. Sounds to me like another Religious Nut using this as an excuse to throw his propaganda in everyone's face." - being fairly typical.

Thankfully, Australians tend not to like "religous nuts" of any persuasion - Christian or Muslim.

ah, savage pencil you still can't resist starting with a little bit of point scoring. still, it seems to me we substantially agree.

however your criticisms of chibo seem off the point. i'm certainly not going to argue against the nastiness and the anti-semitism rife in the middle east. but this doesn't relate closely to a comparison of the coverage in australia of nalliah and hilali.

also the fact that most australians, christians or otherwise, correctly write nalliah off as a nutter is off the point. the question is, is hilali reported or viewed as representing islam more than nalliah ditto christianity? the second question is, if so, is that fair and accurate?

BushBasher - I'm not trying to score points but am beginning to find that having a reasonable discussion with you can be a tedious exercise.

Anyway, you mention that my criticisms of David Chibo seem off the point. Off the point of what? The comments that end up here surely are allowed to have some relevance to the actual article ... are they not?

Anyway, getting back to the topic of Nalliah and Hilali, what is conveniently overlooked in Chibo's article is the fact that Danny Nalliah has been taken to court in Victoria over his alleged vilification of Muslims. If, as David Chibo claims, that there has been an unparalleled "cultural battle waged using the world’s media against the Middle Easterners and Islam", then why was the Islamic Council of Victoria able to take action against Danny Nalliah, Daniel Scot and the Catch the Fire Ministries under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act? And why also was the action of the Islamic Council supported by the the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Catholic Archdiocese and the Justice and International Mission Unit of the Uniting Church in Victoria and Tasmania?

Also if you read the Brisbane Times article you will see references to Pentecostal, the Bible, books in the Bible and several mentions of Nalliah as a pastor. All of these clearly identify him as some kind of Christian. However I feel certain that even if The Australian article only mentioned Hilaly as an imam, or a mufti, and made only references to the Koran or suras and none to "Muslim" per se, that Chibo would probably still find something Orientalist about it.

enough for me. as i said, i don't think we're disagreeing strongly on anything. there's no point in grumpily continuing with the marginalia.

In the light of David Chibo's thesis of showing how the "Orientalism framework functions" by comparing two previous newspaper reports, I wonder what he would make of today's reporting in The Australian. Once again, Sheik Hilali is making news but there is only one mention of the word Muslim in the entire article and that was to quote from Shawky Kassir, who is the president of the Lebanese Muslim Association. The article itself is titled, "Hilali kicks door, blames vandals".

Maybe The Australian is just reporting that Hilali is a creep, rather than seeking to denigrate all Middle Easterners and Muslims?