If it wasn't so serious it'd be laughable. More religious inspired madness due to islam from "The Age" but it's closer to home in Sydney this time. Actually, this one's probably more to do with kick backs and local government than it is to do with islam, but maybe I'm just being cynical, you decide.
Two pigs' heads have been rammed on to metal stakes and an Australian flag draped between them on the site of a proposed Islamic school in Sydney's south-west.
That doesn't sound to savoury, does it?
Officers quickly removed the offending items for forensic examination and established a crime scene.
But does it really warrant "forensics" and a "crime scene"? Last I looked, killing pigs wasn't an offence and if they try and make it one, I will protest most vociferously on the grounds that it would be a travesty for bacon and rib lovers everywhere.
But the reasons for this distasteful act become a little clearer as we move through the article:
Earlier this month, a thousand residents protested against it, with some saying the school would damage the area's social fabric.
And
The local council also received several thousand written objections during the planning approval process.
It seems that despite the protests of thousands of local residents, the council is keeping very quiet about its plans and the land is still “earmarked” for the school. The problem, I think, is that silence from the local council is so often seen as approval so the locals have finally gotten around to being a little more adamant in their protest. It‘s a bit harsh, I’ll admit, but if you ignore the letters and rallies, then you should probably expect trouble. There’s always a few that are willing.
But what really got me about this article was the comment from the Community Relations Commission’s Stepan Kerkyasharian:
The obsessive hatred of the mindless bigots who perpetrated this outrage is evidenced by their total disrespect of the ultimate symbol of our national pride, the Australian flag.
Every Australian Muslim would be offended by such a display, especially one involving the Australian flag.
The man obviously takes a very short-sighted view and seems to be looking on the wrong side of the fence for the bigots.
Of the unbelievers (which includes jews and christians) the Koran has many things to say, here are just few from Saura 2:
Verse 85: “God’s curse be upon the infidels!”
Verse 122: ”We shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the fire. Evil shall be their fate.
Verse 190-93: “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you may dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you. God knows, but you do not.
And those are fairly mild by comparison to some, but there you go. God says “Kill ‘em ALL, I know what's best!” Pigs heads sort of pale into insignificance against that sort of rhetoric I think.
And for those that have been following my last couple of posts, you'll be extremely saddened to hear that Ms Gillian Gibbons was formally charged last night, with "inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious belief." Punishments include 6 months prison, 40 lashes or a substantial fine:
"Khartoum north prosecution unit has completed its investigation and has charged the Briton Gillian (Gibbons) under Article 125 of the criminal code," the Sudanese news agency SUNA said, quoting a senior Justice Ministry official.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Now who's telling porkies?
Posted by Plonka at 12:04 PM
Labels: islam, islam sucks, mohammed, mohammed sucks, more islam, religious madness
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 Comments:
I dunno, Plonka. Pig's heads might pale compared to atrocities in the Qur'an (or the book of Joshua, for that matter), but this is clearly threatening behaviour targetting a particular ethnic group.
I for one would not be looking to defend these sorts of actions on the grounds of "sinking to their level".
Putting that another way, imagine that the proposal was for a Japanese language school, and the offending items were an Australian flag staked through excrement-smeared kamekaze headbands?
Dikkii: Sorry, I didn't mean to sound as though I approve. But it seems to me like there's a majority that's being ignored here though, and I'm not likely to approve of that either.
The point was that there were many letters of protest and a physical protest at the council offices. As I said, it was a little harsh, but incidents like Cronulla tend to suggest that there's always a few that are more than willing to take it to the next level, so you should only ignore the warning signs at your peril. What they should have done was publicly lynch the council.
And I would disagree that it targets any particular ethnic group, it targets a number of ethnic groups. It had very little to do with race or ethnicity and everything to do with religion.
Australian flag staked through excrement-smeared kamekaze headbands?
Didn't that sort of thing used to happen when Bruce was in charge of the RSL?
And I would disagree that it targets any particular ethnic group, it targets a number of ethnic groups. It had very little to do with race or ethnicity and everything to do with religion.
Not sure that I agree with that.
Conversations I've had seem to bring these up as a recurring theme:
1. When someone raising objections to muslims are reminded that Pakistanis and Malaysians are usually muslims too, they'll often invoke the old "but they're OK because..." arguments.
2. When someone criticising Lebanese Australians on religious grounds is reminded that nearly half of Lebanon is Christian, they'll usually adopt a dismissive attitude. I've even had, "They say that, but really they're really muslim."
We have to be really careful when criticising muslims en masse on religious grounds unlike other religions. This is because bigots in the media (hello Alan Jones and Janet Albrechtsen. Fancy seeing your names here?) have time and time again used islamic criticism as a trojan horse for anti-arabism.
Which is, of course, racism. And quite a lot of people know that they're unlikely to be called for racism if they conceal it within religious criticism. Sadly, I have my suspicions that Sam Harris might also be one of these.
What they should have done was publicly lynch the council.
And as Media Watch pointed out, I would have added Alan Jones and Steve Price to your lynching list.
Didn't that sort of thing used to happen when Bruce was in charge of the RSL?
It might have. It's probably why that example came to mind.
Forgot to mention, Plonka, in no way do I accept that you were approving the actions with the pigs' heads.
Please forgive me if I gave that impression - it was unintentional.
Dikkii: The two points you make. I have to admit that I don't run into that very often. Perhaps it's our respective demographic or that Pakistani guy I work with, but when I think muslim I tend to think Pakistan or Indonesia. And after a few quick emails, so do most of my mates, but a couple do think "Middle East". Weird eh?
Having read "The End Of Faith" I have to admit to similar suspicions.
Well, Alan Jones should just be added to a general lynching list somewhere. He's had it coming for a long, long time.
It might have.
It did...
...respective demographic...
Ah yes, very good point. You know, I work with a lot of Pakistanis, but I never connect them with being muslims. That's possibly even weirder than your example.
I suppose that (and maybe it's our Sydney-centric media) I usually regard the mid-south western suburbs of Sydney as being the "straw man", as it were. The key point of that is that it's almost an exclusively Arab world there and muslims of other ethnicities are few and far between.
Well, Alan Jones should just be added to a general lynching list somewhere. He's had it coming for a long, long time.
Agree. I'll even go as far as to say that when the revolution comes, he'll be first against the wall.
Sam Harris - pleased it's not just me.
It did...
Well that explains why I thought of it. I'm not original enough to come up with this sort of stuff myself.
Well, the Pakistani guy I work with stops work to pray three times a day...
A community that's almost exclusively Arab is one thing, but if it had been almost exclusively Islamic, I doubt we'd have seen the same sort of opposition.
I'm not original enough to come up with this sort of stuff myself.
It was a long, long time ago though, so I'll let you off..;)
But does it really warrant "forensics" and a "crime scene"?
In America... oh yes. Absolutely would be a crime. It's called a "hate crime" here and, while it can certainly be a tricky law to manuvere through, there is a place for it.
It's a law that can easily be misued. But I feel like it's probably a good law in principle. I might feel a bit threatened if I were opening a secular meeting hall and the majority Christian community first attempted to vote it down and, not getting their way, put a "head of Darwin" mask on a bloody spike and stuck it in the ground in front of my proposed building place.
Look, I don't disagree about the ugliness of Islam. But I'll deal with that side of it in a different way.
Evo:
It's called a "hate crime" here...
As far as I can find, we don't have a "hate" law but I got to the bottom of it. The flag was desecrated and that's a crime here.
...if I were opening a secular meeting hall and the majority Christian community...
But would you build it where there is always going to be a majority that objects? We call that "asking for trouble" here and it seems that's exactly what happened. But I live in a democratic society which means that the majority wins. So I'm off to build my hall somewhere where the majority of residents don't object and therefore probably won't do distasteful things with either pigs heads or effigies of Darwin (or Japanese Bonsai head-bands), and this is the point I'm trying to make in my article, I just didn't do a very good job of it...
How we deal with the ugliness of islam is a different question completely...
You know Plonka, throughout all of our discussion, I did mean to add this, and I can't believe that I didn't.
The local council in question probably has done the right thing - the article makes no mention of a typical complaint. It does, however, talk about some mentioning "damaging the surrounding area's social fabric".
This is a school, for crying out loud. It is not a gaol or an asylum.
One can really only conclude that if this was the substance of the complaints received, then they really did warrant no further consideration.
I would assume that Kerkyasharian has seen some of these complaints (he is chairman of the NSW Community Relations Commission) and I would therefore have to side with him and the council on this one.
Kerkyasharian even calls for residents with legitimate concerns to come forward. This speaks volumes about the substance of complaints received by the council to date.
Bottom line: If we're going to ban new schools on religious grounds, then will the electorate accept a blanket ban across the board, including Christian ones?
I don't believe they would, and I an tending towards the opinion that Kerkyasharian and Patterson was 100% correct in condemning this as an act of hatred. Camden is semi-rural and (last I looked) very Anglo. And, I also suspect, very open to new schools. Just not Islamic ones.
Dikkii:
Camden is semi-rural and (last I looked) very Anglo....... Just not Islamic ones.
And therein lies the problem. The majority do not subscribe to islam and therefore do not want it in their area. Why propose to build an islamic school in a predominately christian area, knowing full well that the majority of residents will probably complain vociferously, if your intention is bot to cause discord?
And as you know all to well and despite what our constitution or laws may have to say, "we're a christian community and do not want an islamic school" is a legitimate concern to a christian, so I'm still of the opinion that it's the religious aspect that's caused this and if Kerkyasharian and the rest don't recognise that and act on it, it'll only get worse. Like I said, ignore your constituents at your own peril. They may not be able to make a coherent argument, but that hardly matters when they're angry...
Hmm... That sounds a bit like I'm condoning the action again. So, once again and for the record, it's not my intention. Please be assured that I'd be going at the christians (with bible quotes as I did with the Koran) just as hard if they were building a christian school in a predominately islamic area and were running into the same sort of protest.
The point was to highlight the "democtratics" of the situation (if that's a word) and the violence, bigotry and sheer stupidity that religion brings to any argument. But to see all of that in it's full light, you need to examine both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, there's very little that's pretty on either side...
a blanket ban across the board, including Christian ones?
Now you're talking...:)
Now before anyone takes me to task on that (Dikkii), please await my next post in which I try to clarify my position without digging a deeper hole. Wish me luck...
But I live in a democratic society which means that the majority wins.
Well, let me tell you the story of "How America is Supposed to be" (as opposed to the America the "W" has tried to make it in to).
The majority does not rule. The law rules. The law that was created with rights of EVERY INDIVIDUAL in mind. Now, we have elections and the majority rules BUT only to the extent the majority doesn't pass legislation that tramples on the individual.
So let me give you an obviously extreme example. What if the town in question didn't pass a resolution not to have a Muslim school? What if, instead, they passed a resolution that Muslims had to pack up and move - they aren't welcome anymore due to their religious beliefs? Majority rules?
Not in any world I want to live in.
Evo:
You make a very good point, of course and you are right, the majority is not always correct. But unfortunately, that's the way it is (here anyway). How about we pass a law that says any "God" belief at all is unwelcome?
But it could never happen here because officially, we are not allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. That's why the school will go ahead, but that's really not how it works in practice, obviously. And given what's happened so far, it probably means that the poor muslim kids that are forced to attend that school will undoubtedly be forced to endure the taunts and insults of local residents while they travel to and from that school. That, in turn, will cause more unrest and so the problem escalates.
If that's what the law provides for and is the result the law would like to see, then I'm sorry but the law's an ass.
I don't think you're digging a hole, Plonka.
We just have democracy and the law at disagreement. And in this case it appears that democracy is the bigger ass.
Unless...
Exactly how many complaints did the council receive? I notice that no figures are stated.
Was it like former Communications Minister Richard Alston's claim that his office was "flooded" with complaints about ABC bias when the total later turned out to be 12?
Unless..
This has been my point all along and why I think the law is being the ass.
The articles I read all said "several thousand". Now whether that's every resident or just a vociferous couple of hundred, I couldn't ascertain, but if it's a real majority........
1000 people at a local rally is pretty good numbers though, which is why I came down on the side of "majority rules", ko... But stay tunes...
It is probably a bit silly to point this out at this juncture (what John Evo wrote):
The majority does not rule. The law rules. The law that was created with rights of EVERY INDIVIDUAL in mind. Now, we have elections and the majority rules BUT only to the extent the majority doesn't pass legislation that tramples on the individual.
Right now in the Sudan, there is a British teacher who is going to get shat on by both the law and a seething hotbed of popular sentiment.
I think that it's fair to say that the law is an ass, but also that the majority can also be incredibly wrong sometimes.
One of these days, I'm going to blog about how incredibly wrong the law can be. I learned long ago when Britney Spears sold so many albums that the majority usually have no idea.
Post a Comment