Named after the famous text “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, Adam Parr’s fresh, comic strip style memoir is a fascinating glimpse into the murky world of Formula 1 that fans rarely get an insight to.
“The Art of War: Five Years in Formula One” chronicles Adam Parr’s half a decade in the sport as Chairman and CEO of Williams F1 from 2006 – 2012, a tumultuous time for the sport and an era of even more political manoeuvring and intrigue than usual (and that is saying something for Formula 1!).
Those who follow the sport will recall the shock at Adam Parr’s resignation announcement in early 2012, and this book goes some way towards explaining that decision and the events that culminated in the end of his short-lived era. This includes the creation and demise of FOTA, the various teams and manufacturers that left the competition and the effects of the global financial crisis on the sport, among others.
The illustrations, drawn by the talented Paul Tinker, bring unexpected life to the story of the intense Formula 1 competition – not on the track, but at the meeting room tables, where every man (just like on the track) is looking after their own interests. Contemporary F1 politics at its finest…presented in black, white and red for your viewing pleasure.
It is interesting to see how Parr paints the relationships between the teams and where suggests “things went wrong”.
The thin volume – numbering 80 full pages – isn’t heavily narrated by Parr himself. As Max Mosely states in the foreword, Parr presents the story in a way that encourages the readers to draw their own conclusions about the events of the last 5 years in the sport. This is all part of the charm of the book however, which is filled with unlikely delights - the neat gallery of “main characters” (named “Debts and Lessons”) at the beginning of the book, coupled with a sentence or two on that character’s philosophy was a pleasant addition (For example: Bernie Ecclestone: Self deprecation, Lack of interest in material things, sense of humour and patience – who would have thought?).
The book does leave the reader craving for more however – Parr only briefly touches on the main events and it does feel a little light on detail in areas. Rather than an intense analysis and expose, this is more a peek behind the curtain, a run through the back of house dealings…a preview of something more perhaps? I hope so.
Nonetheless, given the beauty of the book itself, and the interesting insights presented by an outsider who came into the industry with the stated goal to “change the culture”, this is a must for all F1 fans. It is a fascinating, absorbing and insightful read that is highly recommended as an addition to any collection. I am certainly a proud owner of a First Limited Edition printed copy myself!
In fact, using our unique ‘Chequered Flags’ rating system, “The Art of War” is awarded …
OUT OF A POSSIBLE FIVE.
Awesome because it was – contemporary, innovatively presented and a rare, honest insight.
Could do with – more detail, more insight…it was too good to be this short!
In 2005, when news of the Cronulla riots spread, my family was inundated by calls from friends and family overseas asking if we were okay.
"We're fine!" we would say. "Queensland's different".
That's how I'd always seen it. Growing up in Brisbane in the 90s and 00s, I remember associating racially motivated violence with Sydney and Melbourne.
Although there were incidents in Queensland, it was never as common or visible. Even after 9/11, although our mosque was burnt down and there were incidents of racism, the community didn't experience the widespread and intense incidents of racial hatred as exhibited at the Cronulla riots or more recently, the attacks against Indian international students.
Advertisement
So why is Queensland different? Do the numbers support my anecdotal evidence? Are we more cohesive, or is it a case of luck and "it just hasn't happened yet"?
According to census data, New South Wales and Victoria have an over-representation of LOTE (Language Other Than English Spoken at Home) population, with Sydney and Melbourne's LOTE population at 37.8% and 33.7%, compared to Brisbane's 17.9% (ABS, 2011).
It is quite clear then, that the ethnic population density in Queensland is significantly less than those in the southern states, perhaps a reason for less racial violence.
Furthermore, the southern capital cities have more densely populated areas with particular groups of migrants that have been settled for longer, whereas Brisbane and Queensland's migrant populations are younger and less dense. In 1996, Queensland had 29.7 % fewerLOTE speakers compared to NSW (ABS, 1996).
On the other hand, the Scanlon Foundation's "Mapping Social Cohesion" (2012) report states that Queenslanders are particularly likely to hold negative views on cultural diversity.
Numbers may not always tell the whole story. As a lifetime Brisbanite, I don't think we have a widespread issue with racial violence as we are a little different to our southern neighbours.
Firstly, the settlement of racially diverse populations hasn't been in the dense concentrations of lengthy settlement as seen down south. This has allowed ethnically diverse populations to better embed themselves into the fabric of the mainstream community.
With that familiarity comes understanding and the reduction of the likelihood of racial violence.
Secondly, as a society, we are now much more aware the needs of migrants and LOTE populations having learned from Sydney and Melbourne. As populations now settle in Queensland, the many support mechanisms available from government and organisations help alleviate many of the issues based around settlement that may provoke violence.
When my family moved to Australia almost 20 years ago, the level of support was essentially non-existent. Now, there are extensive networks to help, and the positive impact this has cannot be understated.
However, it cannot be denied that there are negative - dare I say racist - views around the state. We've been lucky so far. I feel safe, accepted and don't find my race a major inhibitor in my ability to participate.
We shouldn't be complacent however, and as we become more racially diverse we must work together to ensure that our community isn't marred by the manifestation of negative views and the racially motivated violence that can truly damage the fabric of our society.
These are a few examples of many governments’ attempts, both within Australia and internationally, to fight what they see as “cyber crime” or ensure “cyber security”. The question to ask however, is whether these attempts are true steps forward in fighting unlawful and harmful action, or whether they are misguided endeavours to control users, and how effective are they in reality at either of those roles?
We live in an increasingly online society; Information and Communications Technology (ICT) plays an intrinsic role in the daily lives of most Australians, so much so we almost no longer consciously realise it. Like any tool however, ICT can be utilised for both lawful and unlawful pursuits and as such, “cyber crime” has become an issue of consideration for those concerned with the security of the nation, including the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
“High Tech Crime” is the purview of the AFP and is defined in Commonwealth legislation within Part 10.7 – Computer Offences of the Criminal Code Act 1995 . This includes crimes that rely on the use of ICT, or which target ICT equipment, data and services. The Australian High Tech Crime Center (AHTCC) was formed in 2008 and looks after these types of attacks; intrusions, denial of service (DoS) attacks, destruction of data and distributing malicious software (AHTCC 2011).
The AFP’s role is relatively understood, they pursue individuals and groups who have broken the relevant legislation. To aid this, in November 2011 the Australian Government made movements towards joining an international treaty fighting internet crime. This is hoped to reduce the estimated $1 billion in risk to Australian companies from cyber crime every year (The Australian, 2011).
Internet filters however, are a different beast and there are questions about their efficacy and the motivations behind them.
In 2009, the Australian Government began a campaign to introduce an ISP based internet filter to “block overseas sites which contain criminal content” (ABC News, 2009). This would be done through the creation of a “blacklist”, which would be maintained by an independent body in order to “protect Australians from unsuitable material”.
The actions however, brought resounding criticism from a multitude of corners, including the Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), who rightly posed the question:
“Exactly what will be blocked? Who will decide and why is it being attempted in the first place?”
The EFA’s Vice Chair Mr Jacobs suggested that “the ease with which users can circumvent the filtering raises questions about what it is actually trying to accomplish” (ABC News, 2009). This is perhaps the main issue with protection in the form of a filter or restriction; freedoms are reduced and controlled by a third party without any input from the public or the constituents.
Not only did the EFA raise concerns, but groups such as “No Clean Feed” erupted, encouraging users to take action against the Bill, and take action they did.
In August 2009, in response to the AFP breaking up an underground hacker’s forum, the AFP’s computer system was hacked and the individuals accessed both police evidence and intelligence about federal police systems such as its IP addresses (SMH, 2009).
The disruptions didn’t stop there; in 2010 hackers coordinated attacks on various government sites, debilitating the Australian Parliament House’s website and making Kevin Rudd’s website the home for “Operation: Titstorm”
This operation was conducted by the group “Anonymous”, the same group who have taken down Sony and attacked various government sites (such as Nigeria and Syria) in a form of “hacktivism” and are extremely vocal against all forms of internet censorship.
The bill hasn’t been passed completely, however it may no longer need to as four Australian ISP’s have now voluntarily blocked over 500 websites, setting an interesting precedent (Chalk, 2011).
So there is a lot happening; internet filters are imposed, hackers are accessing and committing “cyber crime” despite security measures, new types of crime are emerging as well as traditional crimes being aided by technology. What does this mean for the future? Where does this leave our global community? Can we have our computer and internet freedoms and still expect to be safe and protected?
Currently we are in a period of transition. We deal with new forms of crime with traditional methods of crime fighting. We deal with the symptoms and attempt to stem the flow rather than deal with the source.
Information and Communication Technologies are a tool. In the same ways that cars and knives are tools than can be used for lawful and freeing activities as well as dangerous and deadly activities, technologies are a tool that can be used for great good and vice versa.
It should also be remembered that young people today are growing up in a society where ICT and the freedoms they provide are taken as the norm. As such, removal of these freedoms is most likely going to be seen as a step backwards and will be fought vehemently.
In any society there is the requirement for some rules and legislation in order to prevent crime. However, for crime fighting to be effective, the focus should be on the crime itself and not on restricting the medium by which the crime is being conducted, particularly when it can bring so much good. The types of crimes are changing and perhaps that should be the focus of protection efforts. It may also be worth thinking about looking at why these crimes are occurring and dealing with the causes rather than simply focusing on the symptoms. Easier said than done definitely, but if we are to live in a truly global society, how can you have true and free global interaction if someone picks and chooses what you are free to access? How is that freedom? Is it a case perhaps, of accepting the fact that no society can be as truly free as we want it to be?
Below is an excerpt from the blog of an activist currently in Sudan in reference to the NCP, the nation’s ruling party. He raises a poignant point; highlighting the Sudanese government's use of religion to justify their actions while simultaneously flying in the face of everything the religion stands for.
Far from a moral and legal compass, Shari’a has been nothing but a political tool used by the NCP to consolidate their hold on power. While some naively believed the rhetoric and rallied around ‘the Islamic State’, the majority has known that the regime’s founding ideology has long been perverted by power and greed. In the past, the NCP made an effort, however minimal, to cover up their religious merchandizing, if only as a courtesy. However, when CS gas is fired into a house of worship on specific orders, it seems evident that we are no longer dealing with a regime that can be bothered with even insincere courtesies.
This has been a cause of personal frustration for some time now.
Another example can be found in Timbuktu (yeh, it’s a place), Mali, where a group called the "Ansar Dine", control part of the country and destroy the nation's heritage and history in the name of "Sharia Law".
This band of terrorists has recently turned their guns and fanaticism against the historical shrines that had made the city of Timbuktu a beacon of learning through so many centuries. They have used pick-axes, shovels, hammers and guns to destroy earthen tombs and shrines of local saints in the desert city of Timbuktu, claiming that they are doing so to defend the purity of their faith against idol worship. They are behind the destruction of at least eight Timbuktu mausoleums and several tombs, centuries-old shrines in what is known as the ‘City of 333 Saints’.
***
My frustration is twofold.
Firstly, even though the actions are not aligned with Islamic values and principles, these groups will often claim their actions are in the name of the religion and then rub salt into the wound by denouncing anything or anyone they believe isn’t following Islam.
Secondly, by using Islam as a political tool, these groups taint the name of the religion itself.
Take the example of the the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al-Akhwan al-Muslimeen, the current Egyptian President’s party. The organisation started as a religious social organisation, with stated aims to preach Islam. With power usually comes political agendas however, and the Brotherhood is now one of the largest political movements in the Arab world. The organisation (the political wing) operates under the banner of Islam, however throughout its history, its actions haven’t always been aligned with Islamic values.
Yet, because the Brotherhood as an organisation has an Islamic mandate, Muslim members and calls itself the “Muslim” Brotherhood, it’s actions are seen as representative of 'what is right under Islam'.
This is unfortunate as there is a difference between Islam and self proclaimed ‘Islamists’, or those who use religion as a mean to a political end. This is not to say that all political Islamists are bad as such, things are much more nuanced than that. There is simply a difference between Islam and Islamists, and this should be recognised.
It is not the religion that should be judged by the people but the people whom should be judged by the religion. After all, we are only human, and humans are fallible. Such is the nature of our humanity.
***
This isn’t Islam’s problem alone, it has happened with Christians, Jews and numerous other religious groups. Religion is an extremely effective and persuasive political tool, and unfortunately is often used to justify evil and undeniable atrocities.
However, when you look at it…
“Do you love your Creator? Then love your fellow beings first.” – The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) [Muslims]
“Love thy neighbor as thyself” – Jesus, quoting the Torah (New Testament)
[Christians and Jews]
“Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.” – Buddha
[Buddhists]
It would seems to me that mercy and love are what all religions preach and what we should focus on, regardless of denomination.
***
In all of this, it should be noted that Muslims have been not given a mandate on how to rule a nation.
There are detailed descriptions for many things in Islam, down to the very details of how to wash before you pray, but there is no description for the best “model of government”.
Yes, there is the concept of ‘Sharia’, however Sharia is not a book of law as Western civilisation would have it, rather it is the ‘path’ or the Islamic ‘way of life’ (read further here).
What there isn’t is a ruling on whether Muslims should be right wing, left wing, realist, socialist, communist (though that wouldn’t really work anyway), democratic, authoritarian, dictatorial…
Politics is one of the areas that Islam hasn’t mandated. What does that tell you?
***
So, what are your thoughts? For me personally, I think religion and politics are different realms and should be kept separate. That is how I will keep it at any rate.
The Federal Government of Australia has announced changes to its policies that will see Australia take a huge leap backwards in the humanity of its processing of refugees and asylum seekers.
Allow me a moment here for honest disbelief and disappointment in the handling of this unnecessarily controversial issue.
The Immigration Minister Chris Bowen announced that asylum seekers that arrive by boat will no longer be detained in Nauru or Manus (PNG) as the the offshore processing facilities have reached their capacity. Instead, they will be allocated "temporary bridging visas", meaning they will be allowed to live outside detention centers without the right to work or bring their families to Australia. The bridging visas will allow for welfare and assistance of up to 89% of unemployment benefits ($270) a week, a sum below the Australian poverty line. [More after the jump]
The policy is eerily similar to the Howard era's draconian Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) but manages to make matters worse.
Individuals under TPVs were allowed to work and contribute to the community, thus culturally preparing them for the eventual transition to full Australian citizens once their processing was complete.
The policy, quite frankly, is a recipe for disaster. Introducing potentially thousands of asylum seekers into a community, living in poverty and with no legal way to earn money or improve their standard of living is not only inhumane, it is short sighted and irresponsible. Charities will be overwhelmed by the demand on their resources, communities can turn into ghettos and by disenfranchising and isolating truly vulnerable individuals, the policy has the potential to become the birthplace of a new underclass.
Asylum seekers and refugees are often eager to work, diligent and dedicated to beginning a new life. Stripped of their opportunity to do so, where will they turn? How will they properly adapt to their new culture? Looking internally, why would the community accept them if they don't see them contributing to the community?
There is no doubt that this is a difficult and complex issue with no easy solution. However, the solution cannot lay in essentially reinvigorating a decade old policy, in flaunting international law and creating inevitable problems for the future of Australia's social fabric.
Michelle Grattan made the following comment, challenging people to come up with better options.
It is easy to find holes in what the government has done this week. But it's another matter to say what policy adjustment would best meet the three criteria of humanity, effectiveness and community acceptability.
I tend to disagree. Australians (perhaps reluctantly) elected this government to lead the nation, not pander to every whim, ensuring every solution is "acceptable to the community" before it is implemented. It is their job as leaders and governors of the nation to provide solutions that are in the best interests of the country and its citizens, not simply in the interests of providing short term solutions that may work up until the election date.
Unfortunately however, this isn't how the system seems to work.
The public discussion on this issue has been clouded with political agendas, biased language, emotional manipulation and pure exploitation of fear of the unknown from both sides of the house. Unfortunately, it seems our very humanity as a responsible nation has been caught in the crossfire. There is very little public understanding of what will 'stop the boats' - advertisements such as the below are incredibly ineffective. Where is a potential asylum seeker going to access a computer and the Internet in order to even view the video? In two months it has had a total of 8.927 views...I think that speaks for itself.
Caption provided:
"We're working regionally to stop people smugglers.
There's no advantage taking a boat when it's safer, cheaper and
just as quick to use orderly migration options."
They have got to be kidding. (via)
It is no wonder that Australia is developing a reputation as 'extremely harsh'.
In a time where the nation is attempting to build its reputation in the region and globally through initiatives such as the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper and the seat on the Security Council, this is an embarrassment. Neighbours such as Indonesia and Malaysia, who deal with much larger numbers, are hardly likely to be impressed - or understanding.
The unfortunate result is that this issue has become unnecessarily politicised and used as a manipulator of the public sentiment by both parties. Simplistic statements such as "stop the boats" dehumanise individuals and create a political football that completely distorts the true nature of the discussion. 'The conversation has been poisoned' suggests Professor Burnside, and that poison is what feeds the inexorable decent in this debate.
Almost everything that has happened in refugee policy over the past 11 years has been informed and supported by dishonest rhetoric. Specifically, calling boat people “illegals” and “queue-jumpers” is not only false, it is calculated to prejudice the public against a tiny group of weak, vulnerable people who deserve our help, not our hatred. (via)
In the grand scheme of things, these traumatised men, women and children are less than 10% of our annual migration intake and are just looking for a new, peaceful place to call home.
I doubt that they expected that when they eventually arrived in Australia they would be treated worse than our criminals.
Budget implications should be enough to convince your average Australian that there is a better solution. Detention onshore costs around $150, 000 per person, per year and offshore costs about $500, 000 per person, per year. Surely, there are better options.
For a fantastic article that looks at a possible alternative, check out Professor Julian Burnside's thoughts. There are many other humane solutions out there
Lastly, for those who claim that these initiatives stop the boat, Professor James Hathaway (an expert on international refugee law) states:
The whole people-smuggling problem is a false issue. We created the market for human smuggling. If asylum seekers could lawfully come to Australia and make a refugee claim without the need of sneaking in by boat, they would do it. But we make it illegal and create the market that smugglers thrive on.
We are extremely lucky to live in Australia and call this land home. Is it too much to show some humanity and share?
I find myself struggling with being both content and restless. I have ridiculed myself for being the researcher, therapist, wife, and friend separately, constantly feeling as though I am lying to someone.
Choosing a career seems endlessly difficult, but actually, most of work falls into just a few categories, and most of what we love to do falls into just a few as well. Look at your choices. They probably reveal to you which of the three paths you should take.
Since Tetris was launched on the world in 1986, millions of hours have been lost through playing this simple game. Since then, we’ve seen games consoles grow in power, and with it the appearance of everything from Call of Duty to World of Warcraft. Yet block and puzzle games like Tetris still have a special place in our hearts. Why are they are so compelling?
The terrifying truth is that I’m making a difference no matter what I do, whether I like it or not. The math is right there: Everything else being equal, my actions amount to 1/7,047,833,249th of human existence, give or take whichever babies are being born right now.
For anyone interested in regional politics:
This week China starts its week long congress where they are going to begin the once-in-a-decade leadership transfer process. Interesting stuff indeed...
So during the congress a new central committee is elected, and they then choose the Politburo Standing Committee, the highest decision making authority in the land.
The congress opened with the outgoing leader, Hu Jintao addressing the congress and stressing that the fight against corruption could ‘prove fatal’ to the party if not won. It is said that the committees are already known before the congress begins, many decisions being made through “backroom politicking”. Either way, what is important is what the leadership plans to do…and it definitely seems that holding on to power is one of their objectives (naturally).
The BBC reports a little more here, and says that in Beijing, more than 1.4 million volunteers have been brought in to help out with security for the congress. Wow.
China is the world’s second largest economy currently and is well on its way to becoming the world’s first. The eyes of the world will be on the communist nation this week more than ever…
What do you think? Where will China’s leadership take it? Their system has clearly worked for what they want to achieve so far…right?
The short film below illustrates what happens when you take individuals from opposite sides of the pack mentality and place them in a neutral environment.
There is no denying the human race is obsessed with conflict. Our history as a species is riddled with conflict; often great change is only ever achieved through periods of upheaval, also often characterised by conflict.
It would seem that conflict and war is one of the great catalysts for change. As humans it is so easy for us to disregard an injustice if it doesn’t affect us, however once the conflict reaches our circle of comfort we are then catapulted into action…so then perhaps it can be said that conflict is a part of ‘human nature’, or at least the human story.
Couldn’t it be argued however, that ‘anything humans do’ is a ‘part of human nature’? If so… does that mean everything should still allowed to be seen as acceptable?
Where is the line between blaming our collective actions on human nature and taking personal responsibility for our actions?
Conflict is inextricably linked to the concept of “War and Peace”; the age old battle between “good” and “evil” illustrated through decades of battle between empires, to grudges between siblings or the fight on the streets between criminals and the police.
Good versus Evil is perhaps example of an completely polarising dichotomy that is in fact, extremely subjective. Isn’t one man’s terrorist another’s freedom fighter? Who decides who is good and who is evil? It is a concept also so all encompassing that it can be stretched to meet almost any agenda. Australia is one example where inter-communal tensions are sometimes framed within the “good versus evil’ concept. This often fails to highlight the true nature of any conflict, instead depicting groups as a single, monolithic entity rather than a number of human beings with humanised emotions.
The example of the relationship between mainstream Australia and asylum seekers perhaps, or the Cronulla riots in 2005 or even the fall out after the protests in Sydney (in response to the Youtube video made on the Prophet Muhammed PBUH) are examples of situations where the ‘pack mentality’ overshadowed individual thought processes and where those labelled as ‘different’ were now seen as the enemy.
This group think process is furthermore fueled by our environment. Shortly after the protests in Sydney last month, comments were made in the media highlighting that “ethnic tensions were set to explode” (source).
A key ethnic affairs adviser to the NSW Coalition government has warned that religious and ethnic tensions in western Sydney have the potential to “explode” the nation’s multicultural fabric in the aftermath of last Saturday’s Islamic riot.
Dai Le, a Vietnamese boat-person and former ABC documentary maker…warned that multiculturalism was threatened unless new arrivals continued to integrate into overarching national values… (source)
In the light of such rhetoric, you cannot blame individuals for perhaps thinking the worst…
So, on further reflection, there are three points that are being made.
Firstly, in situations where opinions are being shaped by a highly influential environment, it becomes very easy to see the world in a good versus evil, war versus peace dichotomy. We all know however, when looking at the facts that life is rarely ever that black and white and often it depends on the individual values and perspectives.
This then leads to the second point on dealing with “tensions” on a broader scale. There is no doubt that incidents such as the Cronulla riots require an investigation of the underlying currents in a community. But the discourse in which such a situation is dealt with must behonest. It doesn’t take a lot to find out what the issues are; often all you must do is ask.
Thirdly, on the question of conflict and human nature, in light of the above…
I believe that it is folly to say that conflict isn’t a part of human nature, given our propensity towards it in history. I don’t believe the ‘human nature’ argument however, can be used as an excuse.
It is our responsibility as humans to live up to our moral standards and take individual responsibilities for our actions, and that means choosing to not engage in conflict.
Conflict used for change is often a race to the bottom; brutality can extend its miserable tentacles and affect generations. Only when a cycle is broken by collective individual actions to act differently can ‘peace’ be found…whatever peace means.
Anyone who has been paying even the slightest attention to Australian politics for the last day or so would know about Julia Gillard’s impassioned performance in parliament yesterday, labelling the opposition leader Tony Abbott as sexist and misogynist.
Firstly, let it be said that there is no doubt that is was a fantastic and riveting monologue. I love a well delivered speech, and the great leaders of in the past have often been lauded for their ability to rouse audiences and crowds into frenzies with addresses that stir the soul. This was definitely one such example for Australia – especially given the performance of our parliament generally over the couple of years.
Another part of the reason that the speech was so well received was that the Prime Minister finally spoke about the issue of sexism when she hadn’t really (to my knowledge) publically broached it before, and seemed genuine in doing so. She cuttingly pointed out a number of instances where Tony Abbott made statements that were clearly sexist, highlighting the entrenched (and quite possibly subconscious) culture of sexism that exists in the highest levels of government. I believe we live in a relatively patriarchal society and though that is changing, sexism will continue to exist in implicit and explicit forms. For this to truly shift, the culture must be acknowledged and brought to account; this is what the Prime Minister was doing, and this is to be applauded.
It was an erudite, honest speech on the sexism that has repeatedly been levelled against her by her opponents, led by Tony Abbott, with language including “ditch the bitch” and “make an honest woman of her”. To miss that is to completely miss the point.
The Prime Minister’s speech had about as much to do with Peter Slipper as a superb double-twist-summersault dive does a diving board. The Slipper case was nothing but a catalyst for a more important debate. It was, frankly, long overdue.
However.
I believe the timing of the speech, the way in which the Prime Minister has conducted herself since the Question Time session and the overt way in which she framed the debate was a cunning political move indeed.
Why? Well who, in all the hullabaloo, is paying attention to the now resigned Peter Slipper? Where did that conversation go? I don’t necessarily think it was fair of most of the mainstream media to blast the PM as they did, however I do think they were right in pointing out that this was a brilliant political pivot on behalf of the PM and Labour.
As with all things in politics, perhaps it is best to look at the facts.
Yes, a brilliant and inspiring speech was made. This has been done often in history, often to very powerful results.
The difference in history however, is such speeches are often followed up by some form of action, or a call for action. Without action or follow up, great speeches turn into riveting…rhetoric.
I am yet to see any “calls for action”. Perhaps I missed the memo.
“Well done” is always better than “Well said”.
***
Sidenote: Call me cynical, but I continue to be frustrated by the reactionary nature of our government. They say bad times breed good policy…but I don’t know if we are there yet. Interestingly enough, did you know that Indonesians (by and large) tend to think of our politics as unstable? Weird right…
…but then I guess with “banning live exports after a TV show” and “putting in a rotational US base at Darwin without consultation”…all happening within a few months of each other, one begins to understand why…
***
Sidenote 2: Does the nature of the response to her speech (“a ferocious personal attack”, “aggressive”) suggest that even the response to an impassioned speech is sexist? If it were a man talking in a similar fashion, would those views still be held so negatively? Hmm…
I am sure by now, you have heard about a 13 min film trailer named The Innocence of Muslims that has caused riots, death and violence throughout the world, peaceful Down Under included.
I had been trying to avoid the clip for peace of mind, but finally relented and looked up the video this morning.
Golly. I couldn’t watch more than 5 minutes. Yes, it is offensive, but thousands of Muslims are rioting around the world over such a poorly made production? Have we sunk so low?
Ah, this is clearly not an issue to be belittled. The film does insult the Prophet Mohammed (Peace and Blessing be Upon Him*) and his followers (and by extension Arabs and Muslims), depicting them as barbarian, savages and really quite Neanderthal…and because we Muslims see the Prophet (PBuH) as the greatest and purest example of a man who ever lived, I can understand why Muslims are insulted by it.
However…
Just because one is insulted does not give one the right to needlessly riot, act violent and kill innocent people.
(and guys, seriously? Getting insulted by a budget film that’s on youtube? /sigh. We should have slightly thicker skins).
There are two elements to my frustration here:
All the rioting does is further prove and support claims that Muslims are barbaric and backwards. Yes, we can be insulted, however that does not give us permission to run riot. It makes us seem truly uneducated and ignorant, and makes me embarrassed (Allah Yastur) to call myself a member of the Muslim Ummah**. How shameful is that?!There are Christian and Jewish based satires on the internet galore, but I don’t remember the last time I saw hordes of angry Jewish or Christian people on the streets. Why must the Muslim community be the uncivilised one?
The second thing is that this shows that Muslims around the world are willing to rise up in anger over a video made by an ignorant and hateful individual, but are not willing to show the same passion and anger towards issues that actually matter and that affect the lives of their fellow Muslims and humans. Things like:
The death of hundreds of innocents in Syria and the truly abhorrent acts of the Shabiha (see this and this);
The millions of asylum seekers around the world that are displaced with no where to go and no place to call home;
The exploitation of women and children around the world and the disgraceful way in which many are treated in our own Muslim countries;
The barbaric corruption and torture that occurs again, throughout Muslim nations around the world…
My mother told me as a child to ignore rude people, to brush off insults and to “be the bigger person”. Those are essentially Islam’s teachings as well – there are many examples of the Prophet (PbuH) being insulted and denigrated, only to have him treat the perpetrators with kindness and mercy. That is the example that we Muslims are to emulate. That is what Islam (which comes from the word Salam, meaning PEACE!) is all about. We are told in the Qura’an:
“Obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and disregard their hurtful talk.” (33:48)
Disregard their hurtful talk!
Did someone miss that line?
If we truly wanted to make our Prophet (PBuH) proud, we would not shame ourselves and our religion in this way.
***
I have to make one thing very clear, so as there is no confusion among Muslims as to what I mean.
Speaking out against the violence is not the sameas agreeing with the insult. Just because I disagree with the violent protests does not mean I have decided to “serve the interests of the West”.
No.
The world isn’t black and white, and issues are rarely a case of if you are not with us, then you are against us.
Yes, the video was insulting to the Prophet (PBuH).
But no, this does not give us an excuse to act like uneducated cult-like individuals and wreck havoc. Why are we, like a weak tempered town buffoon, so quick to anger?
It should instead be a time for us, as Muslims, to live the example of the Prophet (PBuH), to show kindness and understanding in the face of anger and to truly practice the teachings of our peaceful way of life.
"The sad thing is . . . it's a deceptive film, designed to provoke Muslims, which it has unfortunately done. For us to fall into the trap unfortunately shows that we have a long way to go in terms of practising what the prophet taught." Silma Ihram, The Sydney Morning Herald
* Whenever Muslims say the name of the Prophet (PBuH), as a sign of respect we say “Peace and Blessings be upon Him” afterwards, which is why you will see (PBuH) after every mention. Sometimes (SAW) is used, and that is simply the Arabic version
** Ummah is just the Arabic word for “community” or “group of people”, and when we refer to the Muslim people we refer to the “Muslim Ummah”.
I haven’t had time to think this through, but I wanted to add to highlight the conversation, especially in light of reading a number of things on trust lately.
But that is precisely the point: the valuable service performed by Mr Assange at WikiLeaks is a different issue from the serious accusations facing him in Sweden. Conflating the two may provide a rhetorical rush, as it did in Knightsbridge on Sunday; but over the longer term it badly damages the reputation of WikiLeaks and does Mr Assange's case no practical good.
I think if Assange truly did what he did to those women that is awful, and any man regardless of stature should be punished for such acts. However, I don’t have trouble believing that he has made very powerful enemies because of his work, which then leads me to wondering about the motivations behind allegations. It is not my place to judge, but I do wonder…
It is an easy way to discredit a man and to cause enough fuss that his work becomes tarnished with the same brush. Yes, the editorial says they are two different issues, but at the same time, WikiLeaks’sbrand is so tied into the ‘brand’ of Julian Assange that I don’t think it could escape the spill.
Which would be convenient for a number of people, to say the least.
Interesting times…
Whatever you think about Assange, I think what he did was cause a little chaos, and a little chaos is always refreshing. For me,it was about making governments aware that they should be accountable to the people who elected them. That is the aim, the why. The execution, well, that is another matter entirely, and totally up to interpretation.
We all know where leaving things to interpretation gets us…
So this has been a little while coming... here are some interesting reads for your consumption! Lots of food for thought...and some music to soothe the soul.
Perhaps the most significant change of the next decade will be the dramatic increase in worldwide connectivity via the Internet. The online community is projected to grow from 2 billion people in 2010 to 5 billion by 2020. Three billion new minds are about to join the global brain trust. What will they dream? What will they discover? What will they invent? These are minds that the rest of society has never had access to before, and their collective economic and creative boost becomes our final force: the power of “the rising billion.” We are living in a time of unprecedented opportunity.
Physical education for girls is banned in the public school system and while there are more than 150 official sports clubs regulated by the sports ministry, general presidency of youth welfare, none of them even allow women on the grounds, never mind to actually play. Saudi women are not only not allowed to participate, they are barred as spectators in all major stadiums.
Morsi won the election by a slim margin, and is now President of Egypt. His first few days in office have already been eventful. He banned portraits of himself in public spaces, asked for minimum security when moving around Egypt, met the families of the martyrs and guaranteed them access to him directly, and has announced that his two vice-presidents will be a woman and a Coptic Christian**. These moves have already impressed many both inside and outside Egypt, and are a welcome change from Mubarak’s reign. An important point is that Morsi won the election because he was supported by a variety of social actors, including activists, revolutionaries, youth groups, and Egyptians who did not want a member of the old regime to win. This means that Morsi has a lot to prove. He knows that he would not be President without the support of Egyptians who do not necessarily identify with or support the Muslim Brotherhood or their ideals. The pressure on Morsi is immense, and the expectations endless.
The revolution must be peaceful: A really interesting look on whether revolts must be peaceful, or if that can actually succeed? A question I have been asking of myself lately…
While there is no doubt that a peaceful revolution is a good thing to aspire to, I wonder if it can simultaneously be effective? Can brute power be removed peacefully? Can an entrenched regime that doesn’t have second thoughts about using violence be brought down through peaceful demonstrations and organizing? On the other hand, could it be the case that we are taught that peaceful people power is pointless and ineffective? Are we somehow bringing ourselves down to their level of inhumanness by engaging in violence?
of the intense Formula 1 competition – not on the track, but at the meeting room tables, where every man (just like on the track) is looking after their own interests. Contemporary F1 politics at its finest…presented in black, white and red for your viewing pleasure.
