Links, Links, Links! 13th October 2014

There is a lot of interesting stuff on the internet.  Here are a few of the articles that caught my eye this week...

***

1. A completely different perspective to one that is usually told: The niqab makes me feel liberated, and no law will stop me from wearing it

"I’ve always been the sort of person who loved to experiment, but I never expected that wearing the niqab would be something I’d try."

 

2. How ignorant commentary on Sharia law increases discrimination

 

3. Is it fair to blame the West for trouble in the Middle East?

"In his book A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the emergence of Islamism, Dr S. Sayyid describes five arguments that explain the spread of what is commonly called Islamic fundamentalism, Islamism or militant Islamism."

4. The Myth of Religious Violence

 

5. An alternative perspective on the Emma - Wassim interview on #Lateline that even the PM lauded...

But Alberici’s own responses to Doureihi’s questions reinforced Doureihi’s claims that some kind of underlying narrative was at play. She was becoming flustered by a phenomenon — an interviewee answering her question in a manner he wished — that she should be well used to. Heck, politicians do this all the time. HT is a political party. Doureihi is a Muslim politician wannabe.

6. Is Islam a Violent Text?

This is SO good. Read it.

 

Channel Ten's new show. What do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3U4f6lsp4E

 

Oh and in case you missed it, have a listen to Ian Hanke, Jane Gilmore and I on Outsiders for Radio National with Jonathan Green.  On the Sunday morning show we are talking the Lateline Interview (Emma-Wassim) and the current state of play in Australia...

 

Are you worried about the European elections?

Slide 350978 3778463 free

The recent European Union elections have given a legitimate seat to quite a few far right parties, prompting questions around where this level of extremism is coming from, and to what end it is leading?

The Huffpost reports on some of the most extreme, including the Dutch party which wants to rid the country of Moroccans (who were ironically brought in by the Dutch themselves to bolster their workforce), a group in Hungary who want all Jews to sign a register (sound familiar?) and a number of strongly anti-immigration and anti-European parties across the continent.

It is extremely disappointing to see such strong levels of hatred, downright racism and homophobic rhetoric coming out of so called ‘civilised’ nations.  We have been frustrated in Australia with the level of anti-asylum seeker language, but it hasn’t reached the levels of mainland Europe and the Tea Party across the pond.  Where is this all coming from, why is it so and how can we tackle it?

***

I’ve been fortunate to travel to Europe a number of times and cannot categorically say that I have personally experienced strong levels of racism, but that is obviously not completely indicative of the situation.  Firstly, visiting a European nation as an Australian is novel enough that people tend to overlook the colour of my skin and religion and focus on the novelty of being from a land so far away. Furthermore, by not being a migrant and simply a visitor, I do not pose a ‘risk’ in the same way that people fear immigrants are.  

It could be those reasons…or it could be that I am simply blind to the racism around me and chose not to see or be affected by it.  If people are choosing to believe their prejudices with force, what is there to do but continue living one’s life?

Anecdotally, discrimination in Australia happens on slightly different grounds.  Barring attitudes to the Indigenous Australians (which is a whole other discussion), prejudice is largely based on ignorance rather than true, steeped hatred of the ‘other’.  There are few exceptions, and there are pockets of population where research shows social cohesion to be at troublingly low levels (Western Sydney and Logan being areas of note).   However by and large (and making a huge generalisation), Australians tend to feel that if someone is trying hard and giving ‘being Australian’ a fair go, then they’re alright.  So if they’re trying to speak English, working hard and don’t take things too damn seriously, they’re alright mate.  We are too young a country to have the sorts of issues Europe is dealing with. 

What creates an environment that enhances social cohesion is well known.  Those who are well educated and well off are more likely to be tolerant and accepting than those from lower socio economic backgrounds, regardless of background.  A fascinating comment recently made me aware that even the Sudanese and other African migrants were irritated with boat arrivals in Australia.  

Why? One would imagine they would be willing to welcome people from similarly difficult circumstances.  

It was a case of survival: the perception was that these newcomers would be fighting for the same types of jobs and were seen to be coming in a manner that was cheating the system everyone else used (i.e. those who went through the UN refugee camp process). Fascinating right?  

So why are people moving further and further right in Europe?

They say in tough times people tend to close in and  fear the unknown significantly more.  It is a step down Mazlow’s hierarchy: people are no longer in the space of self actualisation and are more focused on the survival and work levels.  They are focused on providing for their family and any obstacles are just barriers to be able to protect what they love...

Regardless of whether there are legitimate reasons or not though, extremism is not acceptable in any shape or form.  The extremism seen in Europe is reflective of the extremism the West is so frightened of in the Middle East and North Africa, they are just based on different lines.  Extremism based on nationality is no less dangerous than extremism based on religion.  Both exhibit cult-like mentalities, and encourage behaviour that is downright barbaric.  Reason and logic doesn’t seem to work...

So the challenge is for the young, educated and informed young people who have grown up in a globalised society to ensure that extremism remains fringe and ridiculously laughable.  This is where a new generation can really leave a mark and share in a meaningful legacy.  By and large, I have seen this happen but the trick is to have it spread beyond just the educated upper and middle classes and move into the lower socio economic groups.  

Some young Europeans have said the fact that extreme groups have a legitimate seat at the table is good as it means they can argue their point and be shut down in a formal manner.

I am undecided.  I appreciate that this may be the case, but by allowing these types of ideologies to blossom in mainstream media, what else are we then accepting as a society?

It isn’t always easy being tolerant and accepting of what is different and unusual, but multiculturalism and globalisation don’t happen by accident. It takes well designed policy, implementation and maintenance to ensure it remains successful. 

Australia is doing okay, but we cannot be complacent. If we are to avoid an EU-like situation, let’s keep our eye on the ball and hope the Europeans can sort themselves out before things get too nasty.  

What do you think? Why are people moving to the far right, and is it something we should worry about?

The map is being redrawn, in blood.

It's happening.

As Greg Sheridan poignantly said in today's paper: 

It is impossible now to believe that Syria and Iraq will ever be reconstituted as the states that they were. The map of the Middle East is being redrawn, and it is covered in blood.

I don't usually agree with the man, but Sheridan's article is worth the read.  It raises many a salient point, and the crux of it is this: times are changing.

What is happening in the Middle East is not the result of any one action or event, although some contributed more than others.  The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not great for the region's stability, but the blame does not lie solely there.  Nouri al-Maliki, the installed Prime Minister of Iraq for example, had plenty of opportunity to bring the various religious sects together in some manner but failed to do so effectively.  Yet, this again isn't the only factor.

Alas, the lessons of history.

What is happening in the Middle East is not due to a recent phenomenon.  In our conversations around the causes, the effects of the first gulf war are often omitted.

More importantly, the lay of the land pre the World Wars are ignored.

This is the map of the Middle East in 1914.

Middle East in 1914

This is the rough map of the region now.

middle-east.v2

Notice any differences?

I can claim no superior knowledge of the region and am no historian, political scientist or expert of any sort. However, the argument can be made that the construct of the 'state' as we know it is an unnatural relic of the colonial era.

Sudan, my country of birth, is a classic example.  Straight lines make (or made) our borders.  Tribes that make up nations follow the land, not straight lines! Boundaries were drawn through tribes, and land was divided up by colonisers in ways that suited their ends.  The 'states' as we know them today aren't necessarily a true reflection of the allegiances within the nation.

This was brought to my attention most keenly last summer when I asked a cousin why they weren't fighting to free Sudan from the current dictator.

"Why should I care about what happens to Sudan? What has Sudan done for me? If I want to be taken care of, in health, education, resources, anything, I turn to my tribe. Sudan as a country is useless..."

Although that may be a reflection of poor governance, the essence rings true.  The entire region is tribal, sectarian and bonded through links that those wanting to colonise - or sometimes even help - may not always completely understand.  As such, to expect people to cling to borders and national identities that are so very new may be difficult...

Sheridan may be right. This may be the end of the liberal international order as we know it, but perhaps it may make way for an order that better reflects the natural state and allegiances individuals have...

***

The hope that it may lead to something better is simply a reaction.  

My reaction; a scrambling attempt to see some good and benefit in a situation that is so brutal, callous, violent and cruel that my mind can barely comprehend it.

How we as humans are capable of such is beyond me.

Yet, for a generation that has been brought up on bloodshed, how can we expect any different?

How do we Lest to Forget...If we never knew?

maxresdefaultCan you adopt a country's history if it isn't your birth or ancestral background?

When you become a citizen of a country, do you absorb its triumphs and tragedies? Does your new country's commemorations become yours?

ANZAC day is something of a sacred day for Australians.  Thousands wake up at dawn on the 25th of April to listen to the solemn, heart wrenching tones of the Last Post, to honour the fallen soldiers of yesteryear and to thank those who continue to dedicate themselves to the defence of our nation.

To be honest though, ANZAC is probably something that holds mixed meaning to those who, like my family, migrated to Australia and do not necessarily have the shared history.

Gallipoli, for example, is a huge part of the ANZAC legend. Yet that campaign was fought against the Ottoman Empire, and many of those troops were  Muslims from Turkey. How does someone, born as a Muslim in Turkey but who grew up in Australia, reconcile that?  Closer to home, how does someone who arrived to Australia perhaps as an Afghan or Iraqi refugee, fleeing from a war in which Australian troops took some part in... how does someone like that be a part of the fabric of the ANZAC story?

This can be construed as treacherous talk, definitely.   War and conflict are hugely emotive issues and often form part of a national identity.  It isn't treacherous though; it is so important that we as Australians get it right.  I am a lowly civilian, I have no history (Alhamdulilah) of war or conflict of any kind to relate to (my family are engineers through and through, and everyone needs engineers!) so can't claim to know the way things should be commemorated or in any way intend to warp the import of the history.  This isn't intended to be sacrilegious, but an opportunity to start a conversation.

I am passionately Australian and to share in what is a huge part of the Australian identity is a must.

So how to relate to and reconcile the history? How do I, as a migrant Australian Muslim, find my value and space in the ANZAC legend?

I look at it as a human.

Often, there is no one truth, nobody who is 'right'...only those 'left' standing.

So rather than dehumanise any 'side' by seeing them as the enemy, I think of our shared history as humans.  I see ANZAC day as an opportunity to commemorate those who chose to give their lives up for a purpose larger than their own.  I chose to pray for, my heart aches for, young lives lost, missed connections, misunderstandings.  For troops who became friends on no-mans-land in downtime only to realise these were the people they were then to kill.  For young people today who go away to fight for something they care about, whether it be a country or a tribe or a even their religious freedom - who am I to judge what is worth fighting for? For those who come back with PTSD and suffer even longer, that sacrifice perhaps less appreciated...

For if ANZAC is about bravery, mateship, fighting for what's right... well we all have our own manifestations of that.  Yes, for many it is about slouch hats and medals, but sitting alongside that surely it is about recognising our humanity as Australians and being grateful for a greater sacrifice.

We do adopt a country's history when we choose to call it our home, because history is part of a nation's identity.  It is what it is. Although we may not remember it, it is our duties to make sure we do not forget.

We humans too often forget the lessons of our past...

***

Edit @ 5:30pm 25th April 2014: 'Turkey' was replaced with 'Ottoman Empire' to reflect the true nature of the conflict.

How much is your mother worth?

P1040398-1024x768

"How much is your mother worth? How much money would your brother, sister or aunties be worth?"

The words rung in my ear.

Yesterday, I had the fortune to sit in a presentation by the Larrakia Foundation, a group that advocates for the interests of the Larrakia, the Aboriginal people of Darwin.

The cultures of the traditional owners is remarkably fascinating, and it always surprises me how little I know whenever I learn something new.

Granted, there are hundreds of different Aboriginal nations in Australia, all with their own languages, customs and types of beliefs.  Some things though, like the kinship system are found in many different 'nations', and I was amazed to only be finding out about it yesterday!

The lady in the presentation talked about many a thing, but one line in particular has remained with me.

"How much is your mother worth?" She asked.

"People tend to think the apology is about compensation. Tell me, how much money would you want if your mother was taken away?"

I shook my head to make sense of it. Although I have always had compassion for those affected by the stolen generation, it is when messages like that are shared that it is really brought home.  

Yes, we are not personally responsible as individuals who are descendant from those who made the decisions to persecute and oppress others.

However, we are responsible for having compassion for one another. We are responsible for ensuring that as a society, we look out for each other and not let race be a determining factor in our interactions.

That brings us to where we are now as a nation. The repeal (technically the amendment but it's so weak it is essentially a repeal) of 18C and 18D in the racial anti-discrimination act is something I have been fuming about for a while.  You can send in submissions, and I'd suggest that.

Fundamentally though, for those who aren't across the changes, my issue is this:

If we are to give people the right and permission to 'be bigots' as adults, what on earth are we teaching our children?

We talk about fighting bullying, yet we let people bully each other, publicly, because, why? It is in the interests of a small minority of powerful men? We talk about a fair go, and yet want to judge insult by the standards of the perpetrator?

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the litigious nature of things that we forget the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is this:

Multiculturalism and diversity do not happen by accident.

We aren't a beautiful mixed nation of migrants because a bunch of random people just decided to visit a huge island.  The fabric of our society is delicate, and something to be worked on.  We have to proactively support multiculturalism and cultural diversity in order to keep Australia thriving, not tear it down bit by bit so that groups feel more and more marginalised...

One day I hope we will look back and think, "woah, wasn't that crazy? We almost let that happen... Thank goodness we didn't."

In this day and age though, I am not so sure.

Airing of the IQ Squared debate on ABC!

intelligence squared

The Intelligence Squared debate which was shown on BBC, "God and His Prophets Should be Protected from Insult" is now online!

You can also catch it next week on ABC TV Big Ideas on Friday 7th February on ABC1 at 11 am.

This program will REPEAT on Sunday 9th February on ABCNEWS24 at 6.00am.

If you aren't near a TV, the the full web version of the session it is available here.

It will also be available on ABC Online (iview) after the program has aired :)

Looking forward to hearing your feedback!

Madiba! A lament, a celebration.

Nelson-Mandela’s-Top-Five-Contributions-to-Humanity Tears for a man who inspired us all.

Nelson Mandela passed away today, at the age of 95.  There aren't many other figures in recent history who have inspired us Africans in the same way, and sacrificed so much for his people with such humility.  This is a piece I wrote a little while back but never published...now is perhaps a fitting time.  

The world is an emptier place without Madiba.

***

He is one of the great men in modern history, one of the true statesmen that have graced us with their wisdom.

I am not South African myself, but I feel a kinship to the man who gave up 27 years of his life in a prison to fight a cause for his people.  When he was released, he somehow was able to also then forgive the very people that locked him away.

“As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I'd still be in prison.”

I may not be South African but as a fellow African, Mandela (or Madiba as he is known to his countrymen), is like my very own grandfather.  It is a sentiment I think shared by most, if not all Africans who have grown up or witnessed his immeasurable sacrifice and influence on South Africa and on the continent.

My family originates from the Horn of the continent; having been born in Sudan and flavoured with Egyptian and Moroccan blood, I am thoroughly north African.

As with all African nations (bar one!), the effects of colonisation was keenly felt in Sudan.  Interestingly, the effects of their departure and the legacy that they left still remain.  Sudan was conquered by the British, and in an effort to move on the current regime did everything they could to establish an 'anti-British' and ultimately 'anti-colonial' environment.  This included reverting the education system to Arabic and implementing a strange version of Sharia Law that only applies when they see fit.  In an attempt to find their own identity and cast of their colonial shackles, the nation has shackled itself to static ideologies and a fear of the 'other'.

Sudan isn't unique in this situation.  Every nation has it's own story of post colonial struggle and the fight to define their national identity.

Madiba is a shining beacon of light in this darkness of confusion that African nations have sometimes found themselves in.

He, after all, is the man who fought the good fight for his people against the oppressors.

He, after all, is the man who won that fight.

Most importantly, he remained true and uncorrupted and has stood for democracy and truth steadfastly and with conviction.

It always seems impossible until it's done.” he said.  At the time, the end of apartheid did seem so.  Yet here we are today.

It is difficult to put into words the importance that Nelson Mandela has in South Africa and around the continent. The monarch-like love for him, the deep caring the people have for their leader is unparalleled and very difficult to replace.

Perhaps it is a blessing in disguise for all that we have been made aware of his illness and frailty, in order to prepare us for the eventual truth.  This way, the people are mentally preparing themselves and are thinking about the preservation of his legacy.

At the end of the day, all the love won't be enough if his legacy is lost. To honour his work and his life, we should all remember his words and his actions and aspire to work together and build a continent he would be proud of.

***

"I am here because of people like him" - Zola, a friend and South African sister.

Indeed we are, and we owe much to his legacy.

***

Read The Guardian's obituary here.

Book Review: STOP PRESS

Just finished reading this short and punchy 'history' book, written by Rachel Buchanan.

'STOP PRESS' is one of the Published Scribe's Media Chronicles, a series of first person accounts about the changes in the mass media that we are now a part of.  I was actually sent this particular book by Crikey as part of my subscription which I am thoroughly enjoying and is probably where I get most of my Australian news from.

Shameless promotion aside, the book and the Chronicles are timely, given never-ending public lament on the death of the newspapers.  Circulation is down across almost all dailies in Australia, revenue is plummeting and it seems the grieving has begun before 'Time of Death' has even been called.

It is interesting to ask whether this is a history book or not.  Rachel's friend, quoted in the book, seems to think so.

[box] "I started to explain that I was writing about the present, about how newspapers were made now, but my friend interrupted. 'Yes it is,' she said. 'We are history Rachel. You are writing a history book.'" [/box]

Perhaps.  Buchanan chronicles the huge change in the world of newspapers over her lifetime, a change that has occurred so rapidly it is no wonder folk are blinking their eyes, shaking off twittering birds circling above their head.  The fall of newspapers has been rough and undignified in a way.  Rachel writes nostalgically of hot metal presses; proud, loyal distributors who would do anything to get the paper out on time, an entire industry devoted to reporting, writing, producing; intellectuals in their own world that are unused to this recent loss of importance.

Again, like other books and films, I become nostalgic for a time I never knew.  The world seems foreign yet romantic in a way that reminds me of period-films; movies set back in time that make you wish you were there.  Sometimes though, you realise if you were, you probably wouldn't have been living the life shown on screen.  After all, when in history were coloured people ever the ones inhabiting mansions?  Downton Abbey, for shame.

What Rachel does well is highlight that the (alleged?) death of the traditional press (if it can be called a death - after all, the book claims that the national circulation is still 11 million) does not just mean the loss of jobs for reporters and journalists, but of the entire industry around the 'press' itself.  This was an angle I had not really considered before.  Newspapers were a 'manufacturing' industry, and with the decline in manufacturing around the West generally, newspapers naturally followed suit.  The book does well here, giving life to all from the paper mills to the ink stained men working the presses and the local distributors, stuffing papers with inserts every night.

Yet, I feel there is a unnecessary conflation between the death of the newspaper and the death of 'quality journalism'.

I was born early enough in the nineties to not have grown up with the internet as integral to my life as air.  I grew up in a family that lived on newspapers; until today I pick up copies of The Australian (I do love a broadsheet) and the Financial Review (and SMH/The Age if travelling) whenever I get the chance.

However, it strikes me that all the lament is coming from those who played a role in the old world of the press.  Personally, I feel like news is news is news.  Online I can be my own curator, add to the discussion and diverse voices can be heard, and, well, that is just fine with me!

Yes, the traditional world of the press is not as ubiquitous as it used to be (in the West, the East is still a little different).  Neither is the world of vinyl, or horse driven carts.  New technology is different, but it doesn't make it any less valuable, if we treat it with the same level of respect as we did its predecessor.

The old school press might be dying, but journalism doesn't have to.  In fact, I don't think it is.

Stories that are truly investigative and revolutionary might not occur every day, but the recent Edward Snowden upheavals are examples of the fourth estate really showing why it remains a pillar.

The internet has shaken things up for the capitalist world, which thought it had its revenue streams all figured out.  In a way, I like the upheaval and the change.  It means the power has shifted - or at least, has the potential to shift - from powerful (single-demographic) men who controlled it all, including what the public saw as the truth.   Too much power with the one demographic is never really much fun.

I've never heard a person my age lament the death of the paper; we read the news on our laptops, phones, iPads and just get on with life.

Yes, things are different.  The money for editors, sub editors and the like isn't what it used to be.  The structures are changing.  Buchanan's book is a chronicle of that change.

Still...

Change brings new beginnings, and I am excited to see what we young people make it.

It's going to be a fun ride :)

Speech: IQ^2 Debate (BBC World)

intelligence squared  

On the 7th of November, I had the honour of debating with the likes of Julian Burnside, Uthman Badar and Thomas Keneally on a pretty interesting topic: whether God and His Prophets should be protected against insult.

I was pretty nervous and excited about the affair, as can be seen in blog posts here prior to the event.

The debated was screened on BBC World to an audience of about 70 million on the last weekend of November, and you can check out the video here.

 

This is the transcript of the speech...

***

God / The All-Compassionate / The All-Merciful / The Source of Peace / The Creator / The Maker of Order / The Shaper of Beauty The Forgiving / The Knowing of All…

And then we have us.  Flawed, fallible, full of passion and fire, and so very…human.

How can we deign to think that we – the creatures that we are – should protect God from insult?

 

Good evening ladies and gentlemen

The topic we have before us today is ‘that God and His Prophets should be protected against insult’.

Tom Keneally and I effectively are arguing against this hypothesis.  From a definitional point of view, the topic is understood as follows:

God’, in monotheistic religions, is taken to mean ‘the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being’.

The word is also sometimes used for emphasis to express a particular emotion, such as “God, what happened here?!” although that is not always approved by everybody.

‘Prophet’ is ‘a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God’.

Should’ is used to indicate obligation or duty.

Protect’ is to keep safe from harm or injury.

Insult’, in its noun form, is a disrespectful or scornful remark.

***

There are a couple of interesting questions that this topic raises.

What (or who) deserves our protection, as individuals and as society?  Should we be protected only from things that will harm or things that have the potential to cause harm?

On the other hand when it comes to insult it must be asked: Is freedom, or freedom of speech absolute?  It clearly isn’t, as the existence of laws, rules and regulations mean that there are levels of restrictions on what we can and cannot express.

What is the difference between freedom of speech and expression, and the allowance for insult or incitement of hatred? What is the difference between the two? If freedoms are not actually absolute but do come with restrictions, what limits do we have? Who upholds these limits?  How does freedom fit around the concepts of responsibility and society?

***

Tom and I will be tackling this topic from different perspectives.

I will address three arguments.

Firstly, I will posit that God, as a supreme being, does not require the protection of mere humans to protect Him from any harm or injury.  Where the damage is being inflicted is on the followers, and so protection, if any, is more about the practitioners of the religion.  Furthermore, if God is known to be above insult, then what is the anger really about? It is there something else going on?

Secondly, I will argue that freedom of expression is important to sustain a functioning, thriving, growing society and that said freedom is protected within religions.  This does however, come with important caveats if we are to live in a functioning civilisation.

Thirdly, I will wrap up by addressing violence as a response to insult.  This is unequivocally unacceptable, although perhaps unfortunately, understandable.  I will humbly suggest that the end does not justify the means, and that in any response to insult, the best examples should be followed.

Tom will then continue by talking about how the concepts of blasphemy and sacrilege, and punishments for them, are not viable in a ‘free speech’ society and how mutual respect is the only ultimate guarantee of respect for God and the Prophets.

***

The concept of ‘protection’ brings to mind a dynamic whereby the strong protect the weak and those with power protect the powerless.  Do we honestly think that we can protect God and His Prophets? For the insult to be incitement to hatred and beyond, the recipient would be harmed by it.  God and His Prophets are surely above our mere words…

So what is going on here then, beneath the anger at an insult?

When people stand against insult, mockery and derision of God and His Prophets it is unlikely due to the fact that they think the words will cause harm or injury directly.  It is more likely a reflection of the pain they have felt due to what they love and revere being treated with contempt and ridicule.

Mockery and derision are manifestations of a disrespect and a lack of sensitivity.  God and His Prophets shouldn’t necessarily be ‘protected’ themselves, rather, we should focus as a society on respecting people, as we are the ones who feel the pain and hurt.  If we are to live in a civilised society, a level of respect towards what others deem sacred is critical.

There is also the added factor of where the insult is coming from and its intent.  Reactions in the Muslim community, for example, that may seem disproportionate may be exacerbated by what some regard as worsening attitude towards Muslims by, dare I say it, the West.  That frustration may manifest itself in a grievance towards free speech.

What is it we are trying to achieve? If it is a civilised society where we all respect one another’s sacred beliefs, is the any protection truly going to be the key or will it be a band aid forcing attitudes underground?

***

My second point touches on the universal concept of freedoms, and more specifically, freedom of speech and expression.

It’s a freedom that cannot be understated, and it is enshrined in the Universal declaration of Human rights, in article 19.  It is why we are able to be here and I am able to have this debate.

There is danger is presenting religion and free speech as mutually exclusive, as incompatible.  Without freedom of expression, which is a bedrock of democracy, open discussion of ideas becomes difficult.

However, if an insult comes with an intent to incite hatred then it moves out of the realm of simple freedom of speech.   I would argue that incitement to hatred is a different beast altogether.  That’s not an insult, it is a vindictive act driven by altogether sinister motivations.

Freedom of expression comes with a level of personal responsibility.  We are all individually responsible for our intentions, choices, sayings and actions in the community that we live in.

There shouldn’t be a need for protection because individuals who practice free speech should bear the responsibilities of their expression.

 

***

With that, I come to my third point.

I believe we should follow the examples of those who lived their lives with virtue.  It may not be surprising to find that such figures, such as the Prophet Mohammed, did not demand protection from insult.

On the contrary, he was insulted and abused often in his life.

He never responded to these events with violence.  In fact, he often did the opposite.

There is one particular example that I enjoy.

God sent the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet after what we shall call a particularly bad day.

'Muhammad! Allah (The Glorified and the Exalted) has heard what your people have said to you. I am the Angel of the Mountains and my Lord has sent me to you to carry out your orders. What do you want now to be done? If you like I may crush them between the two mountains encircling the city of Makka.

The Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) replied with this:

(I do not want their destruction) I am still hopeful …

So those who have used violence in order to ‘protect’ the Prophet cannot say they were following the example of the very man they model their life on.

***

Ultimately, ladies and gentlemen, God and the Prophets are surely above our insults.  They, if you will, transcend the limitations of humanity and the mere concept of us being able to protect them is irrational.

Furthermore, the concepts of free speech and freedom of expression are extremely important to a functioning democracy, so that ideas can be exchanged and built upon. It should always be remembered though that with the right to freedoms does come some level of personal responsibility.

Moreover, violence is an unacceptable form of protection in any situation, particularly when it comes to religion and spirituality. So even in the face of insult, which may be hurtful and derogatory, we would do well to respond in the best way possible, not only in the interests of civilisation but in the interests of showing the best sides of what faith can provide.

***

16:125 Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best…

 

Reflection

Check out my reflections on the event here!

What are your thoughts?

 

Cheers,

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Airing of the IQ Squared debate on BBC World!

1393764_534967586597296_2039430194_n  

You may remember a little while ago my mentioning the debate whether "God and His Prophets should be protected against insult" that I was being a part of.

I got an email a few days ago informing me that it will be shown four times globally on BBC World News this weekend (OMG!) at the following times (GMT).

Times in GMT are as follows:

30th November   09.10, 20.10 1st December    02.10, 15.10

The estimated audience will be 70-80 million.

Slap it in your diaries yo and tell me what you think!

I will be posting the video and transcript of my speech shortly after it is broadcast.

Khair inshallah!!!

Cheers,

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

DigSig

 

On the Stalking of Julia Gillard

"How did we ever let her go?"

Those were my first thoughts.

The Julia Gillard who graced the stage with Anne Summers in conversation a few months ago now was charismatic, charming, engaging, articulate, wise (I could go on!) and pretty well looked like someone who would be a fantastic leader for our country.

The woman on stage in the Sydney Opera House for the hour and a half special seemed miles away from the Julia Gillard that the Australian people had become accustomed to.  Was this really the same women that the country so desperately hated while she ran the Government for just over three years? Was this the same Julia Gillard that graced our television screens for such a brief period of time?

So what happened? Where did this lady go in all the hullabaloo... and how or why did it all go so wrong?

the-stalking-of-julia-gillard-how-the-media-and-team-rudd-contrived-to-bring-down-the-prime-minister

 

The Book

I recently finished an interesting book by Kerry-Anne Walsh, 'The Stalking of Julia Gillard'.

The Allen and Unwin published piece is an interesting blow-by-blow account of the years of Julia Gillard's reign.  It illustrates how relentless white-anting from within her own party coupled with the obvious campaign against her in the predominantly Murdoch-owned media led to the misrepresentation of our first female leader and her eventual downfall - and for what?  It was an interesting read, and brought up feelings quite similar to guilt.

How did we not see the good work that she was doing, the book asks.

We, the Australian public, were not allowed to, Walsh replies.

It is an angry read in parts; angry for the treatment of our first female Prime Minister, angry for Julia as a fellow human being, angry at the press gallery for failing in their role as the fourth estate. I felt like I was having a heated conversation with someone who really cared about Gillard, and someone who in hindsight, wished more were done. What could have been done by us isn't really explained, but as they say, admitting there is a problem is half the battle.

Naturally, Gillard is not blameless. Many Australians still hold deep resentment that she arrived on the scene in the way she did, through what was seen as the 'knifing' of a colleague.  Whether that is an accurate representation of the events we may never truly know, but that is how the picture was painted for the public.  Unfortunately, perceptions like that tend to stick around.

Walshes writing had an obvious bias, but in the wake of the conversation with Anne Summers, I began to wonder - how will history remember Gillard, and what lessons do we as a community take from the last three years?

That question: gender? 

As Julia herself admitted, the fact that she was a female in her role doesn't explain everything, but it doesn't explain nothing either.

My hope is that there is more 'nothing' than 'everything', and that the way that Julia was treated - not only by the media and colleagues but by the public in general - does not deter other young women from aspiring to a similar role.

There is evidence to suggest some women who strive for such leadership positions do not even consider their gender as an impediment or a factor until they get there and realise that it somehow plays a part. The 'ugly, violent sexism' that Gillard and her image were subjected to during her term however, were shocking for many - not least of all Gillard herself, as she fit nicely into the aforementioned category.

The public discourse has been drenched in questions around the role gender played in Gillard's treatment.  Prominent feminists such as Anne Summers herself have admitted to being truly shocked at the capacity of our progressive society to produce such callous content.

However all is not lost, and sometimes success is the best form of response.  Rather than focusing what hateful individuals propagate, or dwell on the fact that a TV show was made about a sitting PM, let us focus on the fact that we had a female PM who had a relatively successful parliament.  Let us use her example as incentive for other young women as proof that you can make it.

Yes, it might be a rose tinted view accented by the optimism of youth but surely it is the way to go.

If people have a problem, they will find any flaw or weakness they can to exploit.  The fact that the female gender is seen as an exploitable weakness is unfortunate, but if someone's gender is the best insult thrown at them, well it isn't much of an insult at all!

This is not to say that we should brush issues under the rug, or investigate why there remains a strong undercurrent of misogyny in our society.  By giving the detractors so much attention in the public discourse though, we are legitimising their actions and beliefs in a way that they don't deserve.

My father always repeated a common Arab saying to me while we were growing up:

The camel walks while the dogs keep barking...

There will always be those who are vocal, violent and sexist.  The fact that we now have a history of females in the highest offices in the land though, is an indicator that gender is not an insurmountable obstacle.  It might not be easy, but hey - societal change never is.

Let's just keep walking - after all, no self-respecting camel deigns to even acknowledge the barking dogs...

We need more men like Malala's father

Malala Yousfazi's story is well known around the world now, and as a one of the nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize this year, her passion for women's education has been given an international platform.

She is clearly an inspiration for many, although there are those who would take away from her achievements by claiming she is a 'good native'; someone who can be used as an example to justify the actions of Western nations.

Looking beyond this though, the story of Malala is not about Malala herself, because as many have pointed out, there are many like her around the world.

The story is rather that of the Yousfazi family, and particularly her father Ziauddin.  This story is about the strength of fathers in a world where bucking the cultural norm not only reflects on the individual, but on the entire family and is one of the more difficult - but worthwhile - paths to tread.

malala

***

I cannot speak for Pakistan or Afghanistan, but as a Sudanese born child to parents of mixed heritage in Northern Africa, our cultures have many similarities in expectation and tradition.

In Sudan, the levels of education that women attain - or allowed to attain - are often restricted by the income bracket and cultural expectation of the family.  Middle to high income bracket groups often see school education (including for women) as a given.  Those from poorer parts of the country do not always have that luxury. Unfortunately, most of the nation's wealth resides within the three central cities of Khartoum, Omdurman and Bahri and so many living in rural and remote areas miss out.

The kicker? The level of influence of the attitudes of men in the family.  Sudan, like many Middle East and North African nations, is intensely patriarchal.  No matter how much 'gumption' a woman may have, or how 'brave' she is, without the support of the family and the alpha men in the unit, some things are unlikely to be tolerated.  This is not to say 'all the women are oppressed', as media often regurgitates, but it does mean that men continue to control much of the public discourse and the public domain more generally.

It is very difficult for a woman to support herself in a house alone, for example.  One's reputation and the way they are seen by the world is the most valuable currency in a collective society.  It is a dis-empowering situation in some senses, particularly if one is used to the freedom of choice and independence women are allowed in other parts of the world to .  However, it is the lay of the land...

It is against this backdrop of patriarchy that the importance of male support begins to be clear.  I see my own father in Malala; a man who values education, opportunity, and sees his daughter not as a less capable member of society who should be married as soon as possible to produce grandchildren, but as a functioning, contributing citizen who has the ability to do so much more than the minimum expected.  My father moved across the world for these opportunities for his daughter, and supported me in every educational pursuit that he felt added value.  He encouraged my passions, even though traditionally, fields such as mechanical engineering and working in very male dominated environments is not always seen as 'appropriate' or fitting for a 'good Sudanese girl'.  I am where I am today largely because of both my parent's efforts, and the blessing of his support has allowed me to be in a role that will hopefully inspire others in some way.

My point is this.  It is unlikely that Malala would have been able to do the things she did - write for the BBC, continue her education - if it weren't for her father's support.  Without the blessings of the patriarch in Sudan, life decisions become quite fraught and difficult; I have little doubt this would be the same in Pakistan. Her father's attitude likely legitimised her actions in the area and allowed her to communicate and make a stand without ostracising her own family in the process.

It is the support of men like Malala's father which is absolutely required in the fight for women's equality, education and liberation in countries such as Sudan and Pakistan.

Without their support, it is an uphill battle that is unlikely to be overcome any time soon.

With their blessings and bolstering however, a difference can be made.

Here is to the fathers of our daughters.