That is no place except under parliamentary privilege and then one can apparently go ‘hell for leather.’ Reading ABC’s Bec Symons account of Cathrine Burnett-Wake ‘s final parliamentary speech you could be forgiven for making the assumption vilification privilege was in play.
Yet Burnett-Wake did not directly defame the incoming candidate Renee Heath; nor did she vilify church groups or Pentecostals in particular. It was our ABC journo who chose to take that liberty specifically linking both with the cultic extremism referred to by Burton-Wake.
The word ‘extreme, extremism, extremists’ appears 9 times in Symons article with Heath being referenced as ‘linked to a Pentecostal Church.’ Goodness: imagine that. A politician being linked to a faith-based community group. The new extremism.
Yes, Burnett-Wake did work on the Inquiry into Extremism in Victoria and mentioned it in her valedictory speech, but this was without reference to any faith-based groups. The inquiry into ‘far-right extremism’ was chaired by Fiona Patten. Of course, if you have an individual chairing an inquiry into the far-right who would be viewed by many as an extreme progressive or far-left, it’s hard to know what to make of it. These labels are not helpful. While inclusivity and democracy is continually lauded, it appears inconsistent to frown upon and fear church members who exercise their democratic right and civic responsibility to become politically engaged and represent their communities.
Surely, the notion of inclusivity includes faith communities. Most faith communities, especially our multicultural communities, are socially conservative. Shouldn’t they have a democratic right to reject extremely progressive views without being demonised? Apparently not. Symon’s says,
“Liberal Party members have expressed concerns that progressive laws passed in recent years such as assisted dying, the legalisation of sex work and making abortion more accessible have spurred extremists into policy making positions within the party.’ Extremists.
This tells me that extremists are citizens who attach inherent value to every life, hold to a more traditional or faith-based view, and have concern about over exposure of minors to adult concepts and images. With those concerned about vaccine mandates also being labelled extremist. It appears parental rights, freedom of belief and choice are all swooped up in the new extremism. This makes the democracy being lauded in Victoria look more like statism.
I agree with Burnett-Wake about the ‘war of words’ crippling real social cohesion. We don’t agree on right or left, right or wrong. We divide citizens by race, sexuality and political affiliation and we label everyone who doesn’t agree as apostates of state secularism and fair game to be vilified publicly as extremist. We might have a political theory of "no place for racism, religious vilification or any form of hate conduct in Victoria” however with the help of our ABC religious vilification holds a privileged position.
]]>
Senator Bridget McKenzie is the ‘real deal’ and it’s a privilege to have her visiting us at Green Gables in Warburton; a historic town nestled between majestic mountains donning stunning flora.
A Senator for Victoria since 2011, Bridget has held ministerial office in the Turnbull and Morrison Governments, also serving as the National’s Senate leader since 2019. She is currently the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development of Australia. Yet neither lofty titles nor her double degree in applied science distract the Senator from remaining grounded. She is just as comfortable donning work boots and traipsing over farms as engaging in rigorous parliamentary debate. Bridget is a fighter for what she believes in and highly respected by grass roots members of the Nats. Her good humour and good sense are great supplements to her wealth of experience.
Don’t miss your chance for afternoon tea with Senator McKenzie 2:30 Tuesday 26 April.
]]>The gap between the developed and lesser developed world grows ever wider and citizens respective top-of-mind issues reflect that. Yet a deeper plunge from symptom to source highlights that aspirational values underpinning flaring global issues remain rooted in the same familiar pursuits; freedom and happiness, which are intimately connected to identity. We live in the age of identity. It’s where people reside, where their battle lines are drawn and what they’ll die for.
There’s an old proverb[1] that says, ‘The soul that is full loathes honey, but to a hungry soul, any bitter thing is sweet.’ Fat and lean. There lies the difference. Physically and ideologically, developed nations grow fat and more complex, albeit emotionally volatile, while those nations lower on the Human Development Index, remain lean and suffer a very different volatility.
For the fat nations, identity isn’t restricted to an individual or community’s tribe, territory or team. Citizens must grapple with a complete set of complex conundrums involving clan, colour, class, creed, craft and ever-increasing categories of sexuality in order to align with virtuous crusades and personal moral codes. These are the complex camps we live in and navigate with their many shared intersections and conflicting emotions. Rarely does one inquire, ‘what do you think about this, or what do you think about that.’ It’s more often a conversation about how you feel. Felt beliefs, felt theories, felt needs. Our felt experiences are increasingly topical. Emotions rule the roost, binding those who occupy the same emotional space. People are no longer like-minded but have a shared empathy. It’s felt that rejecting an idea is hating a person. It’s a difficult space to live.
Being bound to a particular identity camp may restrict free movement on public pathways. Defectors may be ex-communicated or cancelled by those with conflicting identities. It’s important identity adherents stick to their narrative with religious zeal. This is called tolerance but cultivates a very intolerant shame and honour culture. Disagreement from other camps may become a litigious offence, an ‘assault’ on the identity, mental health and human rights of another. Punishment must be exacted. The weapon of choice in fat nations is lawfare, silencing differing opinions and creating fear in youthful inquiring minds who seek where to belong. Many become emotionally bruised and bound, fearful of expressing their inner-most thoughts. Others become intellectually busied in the pursuit of an acceptable home camp; somewhere they can cling to the mob of choice where they feel they’ve located what they’re looking for. Historical notions of freedom of conscience, speech and the rights of the individual no longer top the moral food chain. The clan and creed take precedence. We know that strong emotions constrain clear thinking yet that’s precisely what we put in the decision-making driver’s seat. Fat nations are fat with choices, and this can be overwhelming. So, it shouldn’t surprise us that Australian health indicators rank mental and behavioural conditions as the most chronic conditions.
Kaduna State, Nigeria is lean. The threat here is not so much verbal or legal, felt emotionally or conceived intellectually. It’s much more literal and existential. Food security is just one challenge, compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic and related supply chain issues. It’s been reported that those who identify as Christians in numerous countries in Africa and Asia have been refused Covid-related aid – at times by government officials, but more often by village heads or committees. How they identify is a real hindrance. In Kaduna, Christian families from several villages reported receiving one-sixth of the rations allocated to Muslim families.
Then there’s terror assaults by bandits, herdsmen and Boko Haram sects. The age-old lure of booty is, of course, a common motivator for treachery which is shared universally. That’s what every bandit identifies with. That’s their camp. Earlier this month it was reported that more than 700 people were abducted from schools in northwest Nigeria since December. Kaduna’s Governor, Nasir El-Rufai repeatedly stated his state government will not negotiate with "bandits", as the criminal gangs are known, or pay ransoms. No one is protecting their rights or identity. Locals do their best to support widows, orphans and the less privileged from their own meagre means, even as those numbers of widows and orphans increase due to the constant terror attacks. A message from Kaduna in April this year read:
On Monday a group of Christian brethren who live close to us were attacked on their way home from a wedding in Kwoi south of Kaduna town.
In this attack four ladies who couldn't run to escape were kidnapped. Five had bullet injuries and one driver was killed. Among the ladies kidnapped are two young ladies and two married women who have young children.
The kidnappers have made contact and demanded a ransom of 15 million naira threatening death if their demand is not made. I remember last year we battled to make up the ransom for Rev Meshack and his son which was far less than this demand. What more of this huge amount. But we acknowledge that Luke 1:37 states that "With God all things are possible"
All faith camps are subject to these attacks. In this particular camp, faith is all many have. Thankfully, their faith was rewarded, and the women returned. They’re not likely to leave this camp any time soon.
In Kaduna, romances between individuals from different faith groups can be viewed as treason resulting in literal blood baths. Exercising that freedom to identify as anything ‘other’ puts individuals and those who assist them in a very high-risk category. Defectors must be relocated to physical camps that act as safe spaces. This is a somewhat different concept to safe spaces in fat nations which offer to protect students from harmful ideas, and are ironically located in universities, the very place designed for rigorous debate of ideas. Those in Kaduna who change camps risk their life daily to identify with Christ and are literally cut off from family, vocation, aid and all that’s familiar. Following droughts, famines and Covid closures impacting aid to the region, the camps for the ideologically displaced in Kaduna can be very lean; marked by scarcity. Changing one’s mind, one’s location in the popular narrative, is a very physically dangerous exercise. Punishment must be exacted. At its core, it’s all about identity and the price of changing camps.
The gap between the developed and lesser developed world appears glaring. Where they can, persecuted peoples continue to flee to the relative safety of fat western nations. And here citizens march and protest about racism, inequality and offensive slurs. They flagellate over past sins but ignore where people continue to die daily. Because that doesn't fit the narrative.
Open Doors 2021 World Watch List notes there was a 60% increase over the previous year in the number of Christians killed for their faith with more than nine out of 10 of the global total of 4,761 deaths in Africa. Sadly, these black lives that identify as Christian don’t seem to matter. They don’t fit the fat nations #BLM creed and colour narrative. Where identities intersect, we have a problem. Christianity in fat nations is associated with white privilege and capitalism. These Christians are neither white nor privileged. Their oppressors are their kinsmen, and they are ignored.
The soul that is full loathes honey, but to a hungry soul, any bitter thing is sweet. Australia is fat, many loathing its sweet fortunes and freedoms, those which traditionally formed its identity. Kaduna is lean; our most bitter days a welcome sweetness to her soul. Yet strangely, their respective desperate identity struggles scream ‘hunger’ to me.
What we can do: I've started a GoFundMe to support Rev Muhammed Ibrahim, who I've personally known for 10 years, in his passion to help communities in Kaduna work towards greater self-sufficiency. He plans to purchase a trailer load of fertiliser to replenish the soil, feed the families and contribute to the dignity that accompanies a productive life. Please consider making a small donation to this cause. If we achieve more than our goal, we might even be able to supply a little seed!
[1] Proverbs 27:7 Berean Study Bible
]]>A bill just passed in Victoria which Former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson described as the ‘biggest threat to our democratic freedoms in Australia’s entire legislative history’.
That sobering statement needs to be juxtaposed with the comments made by Eastern Victoria MLC Harriet Shing. Shing said the legislation was all about ‘shame’ and unconditional love. Clearly the divide on this issue could not be greater.
Given Anderson’s statement, it was surprising that so few in the Victorian Parliament opposed this legislation to prosecute the case for those democratic freedoms. How many Victorian parents are aware that ‘harmful practises’ being prohibited in this legislation include particular private discussions in the home? Emotional speeches of serious harm long since outlawed and rarely, if ever, endorsed in Australia overlook this. Expressing views or even offering a prayer, between friends, family members, or receiving advice from counsellors, medical professionals, psychotherapists, psychiatrists or religious leaders – well anyone really – must now be in line with the approved government social theory on matters relating to sexuality. The parental role has been redefined. It has been decided by our government that change in orientation is not possible unless it is away from heterosexuality. 78 former LGBT people surveyed by the organisation ‘Free to Change’will attest that this makes it very awkward for those who have changed in the other direction. Their lived experience has simply been erased.
We can all agree that no one should be coerced into change, but this legislation applies ‘with or without the person's consent.’ This bill removes your free will. Shing said “it was not right that gay people had been made to feel that “love is conditional upon us either denying who we are or agreeing to change”. If Shing ‘felt’ this way, why would she put the full force of the law behind stopping others from exploring who they think they are, just because it’s not in the same direction?
Sale woman, Hannah Lonnee said she was baffled by the opposition from some pastoral leaders to a bill to protect the very young people and hailed the ban as “the first step in gay conversion therapy survivors’ healing “. Perhaps that’s an anecdotal projection, based on her personal feelings. Without devaluing those feelings, it must be noted this bill conflates sexual orientation with gender identity and those most at risk from this celebrated bill are dysphoric children.
The UK case of Keira Bell should set a precedent. At 23 Bell sued the clinic because she believes the adults should have ‘challenged her more’ over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager. Parent’s beware. That’s something you won’t be able to do in Victoria now. The three High Court judges found in Bell’s favour. She said she was ‘prescribed dangerous, experimental drugs’ followed by a double mastectomy. You have to ask, in what moral universe do you prohibit parents from engaging with their kids against such harms?
It’s ironic in Victoria that ‘discussions’ are harmful - while teenagers fuelled with hormone blockers can legally pursue such radical surgery detrimental to their future fertility and sexual capability.
Ms Lonne said she was ‘emotionally damaged’ from ‘mixed messages’ from her church and is celebrating this bill. Yet this bill condemns a growing number of detransitioners, the many more Keira’s who wish they’d be challenged and made a different decision as a teenager. No mixed messages for them; no options at all.
Ms Lonnee is right that all should be free from religious-based coercion. But isn’t this bill itself an act of religious- based coercion reaching into families and dictating to faith communities their new state-approved doctrine? Shouldn’t everyone be free to believe or not to believe, to change or not to change? The accepted Christian view perpetuated throughout history is that all sex outside biblically defined marriage is contrary to the tenets of the faith. If you don’t agree, then as adults we choose to meet elsewhere with those of like mind – not insist everyone change to adopt a personal or government approved social theory.
Those that crossed the floor on this bill understood the huge over-reach of the government it represents. It even has extra-territorial powers to criminalise private and professional conversations outside Victorian borders. That’s scary. The division on this bill highlights a cultural divide between those who hold unswervingly to ideas of freedom of conscience, belief, speech and association and those prosecuting the case for a shame and honour culture, which ironically creates a type of blasphemy law silencing anything but the state-approved narrative. It’s from these types of regimes many of our migrants have fled.
John Anderson saw the risk to democratic freedoms. Likewise, the US federal appellate court struck down the same sort of ban in three states because it was recognised that such laws violate the free speech guarantees of the US Constitution. And yet here in Victoria our politicians didn’t seem to think democratic freedoms were worth fighting for and our media appears mystified as to why there was any opposition at all.
]]>
Legislation criminalising discussions, (not abuse but discussions) whether parental, therapeutic or religious on issues of sexuality and gender, now flows unimpeded from one house to the next in Victoria’s parliament. Uphill it goes with little resistance. The expectation is it will cascade from the upper chamber and flow into our homes, schools, universities, workplaces and places of worship where ‘all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, will feel welcome and valued in Victoria’, no doubt flooded with an enabling love, ‘to live authentically and with pride.’
Well, that is everyone except those whose feelings are unwanted or cause them angst. Those who seek a helping hand to live more authentically out of their values will be legally forced to live out of their sexuality. The Andrews government have dictated this as the best way for them.
They won’t be valued, if even permitted, in Victoria. Sharing a personal transformation story as a result of Reintegrative Therapy, well that would be criminal unless it was in the mandated direction. The days of ‘each to his or her own’ are gone. Friends, counsellors, therapists, parents and faith leaders beware. Free will and consent are now irrelevant and not a license to offer professional counsel or even a personal prayer.
While values and choices may be very yesterday, feelings are very now. The Change or Suppression Practises Prohibition Bill 2020 is very concerned about affirming feelings, and of course that’s the only option. Yet ironically, they won’t allow anyone to affirm your feelings if those feelings happen to change.
Clinicians assisting individuals who feel ‘broken’ (people with unwanted feelings) often identify significant childhood trauma and neglect as gateway issues to their sexual responses and identity. When dealing with underlaying issues, Reintegrative Therapists note that sexual orientation can change. The National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (NAPP) also note in their submission to the Queensland Government, that sexual orientation, real desire, can and does change as other issues are addressed. But that won’t do in Victoria. No one can affirm that another is ‘broken’ or needs ‘fixing’ even if that’s how they feel. This is a group of people the government will not affirm.
Other democratic nations are starting to see where this is flowing and making efforts to turn the tide. The same sort of legislated ban in three US states was struck down by the federal appellate court which concluded that such laws violate the free speech guarantees of the US Constitution.
And when it comes to children, the most vulnerable in our society, governments should recognise the risks of affirming children according to feelings about sexual orientation or identity. While Victoria seeks to ban therapy for children, Finland’s Councils for Choices in Healthcare is recommending dysphoric children receive broad based psychological and psychiatric support and that this must be done at the school level. The UK case of Keira Bell should set a precedent in our own nation. At 23 Bell sued the clinic who she believes should have ‘challenged her more’ over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager. The three High Court judges found in her favour.
In a ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Mrs Justice Lieven, said:
"It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers."
What exactly does this bill hope to ban? Professor Patrick Parkinson has said the ‘therapies this bill seeks to ban have not been practiced since mid-1980’s. They have not been endorsed for 35 years or more.’ Professor John Whitehall has said the science being relied upon comes via a La Trobe Survey consisting of 15 anonymous, unverified, unsubstantiated replies. Who can even dispute that if discussion is banned.
So, what’s this all about? John Anderson nailed it in one when he said, ‘This is the biggest threat to our democratic freedoms in Australia’s entire legislative history.’ This bill claims it will stop harmful practises (we have little evidence of) yet in fact criminalises ‘discussions.’
Meanwhile, there is zero consideration for the real harm to fundamental freedoms, to adults with unwanted sexual attraction, to those with complex underlying mental health issues or trauma, to community relationships between parents, their children and teachers, between governments and health professionals, to those who choose to find their identity in their values rather than their sexuality, and most importantly the harmful pathway of an ‘affirmation only’ policy which administers hormone blockers to children which will ultimately end in castrations, mastectomies and a whole host of other health issues. You won’t be asked what you think about that, but Victorians can rest assured, you will be told how to feel.
When we are compelled by law to turn away family and friends seeking a helping hand with their unwanted feelings, declining any discussion or prayer request, this is completely at odds with the most basic principles of human kindness and an inclusive society.
]]>
The harm argument is central to the bill, so assessing what the Bill defines as ‘harm’ should be top of mind for members of Victoria’s parliament who have been entrusted with the task of voting for or against it.
Just this week the same sort of ban in three US states was struck down by the federal appellate court which concluded that such laws violate the free speech guarantees of the US Constitution. But for those with unwanted sexual feelings or confusion causing them anxiety and depression, banning therapies that support and help them in their life journey is more than just a free speech violation.
It violates the very principle of ‘do no harm’ we expect governments and clinicians to uphold. It violates the notion that people can change. It coerces public acceptance of sexual fluidity, but only and eternally fixed in one direction- away from heterosexuality and acceptance of the sex-chromosomes they were born with.
Under these types of Bills, conversion therapy is defined as a ‘treatment or other practice that attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.’
When we hear ‘conversion therapy’ it usually conjures up images of medieval torture but that’s not even happening in Australia. Professor Patrick Parkinson, University of Queensland, has confirmed that in Victoria there is no such ‘conversion therapy’ harm to address, and that such therapies have been banned or dis-endorsed and out of practice for over 35 years! Furthermore, the government has produced no actual evidence to the contrary.
The harm argument used to justify this Bill not only fails to match up with the reality in Australia, it also fails the ‘pub test’.
Of course, nobody should be forced to do anything against their will, but you have to ask where that leaves those who want to change, and those parents who want the very best and safest treatments for their gender dysphoric children.
Remember we’re talking about helping those who are not happy how they are and are actually asking for help to change, and helping children through what is for the vast majority a transitory phase of gender confusion.
According to Dr John Whitehall, a disproportionate number of children with gender dysphoria also suffer with other mental health issues; 30% are on the autism spectrum and prone to self-harm and 70% are more prone to depression. In a recent symposium Parkinson referenced a Finnish study which found that 25% of these children were on the autism spectrum, there were histories of sexual abuse, anorexia nervosa, and many other issues that could lead them to suicide. Rather than harming troubled children, the standard therapeutic ‘watchful waiting’ approach has a success rate of over 85%, wherein gender anxiety issues are naturally resolved without resorting to irreversible hormonal or surgical interventions.
Ironically, the very thing we’re seeking to ban in Victoria, Finland’s Councils for Choices in Healthcare is recommending; that children should receive broad based psychological and psychiatric support and that this must be done at the school level.
Victoria’s politicians should closely consider the harm argument before casting their vote in support of the Suppression Practises Prohibition Bill, which will have an enourmous impact on troubled children and adults wishing to deal with the emotional pain of childhood traumas.
As Whitehall points out, when you have authority figures, teachers etc only affirming, accepting and encouraging a new identity, how can a child step back from that? He says that affirmation is the gateway to puberty blockers which are designed to retard normal development at puberty. If the adult male brain treated with oestrogen shrinks at a rate 10 times greater than natural aging after only 4 months, in what moral universe can this be administered to physically healthy children?
These ‘puberty blockers’ impact the limbic system and may result in cognitive impairment. In simple terms hormone blockers interrupt development and impact thinking, feeling, emotion, memory, sexuality and the inner sense of identity.
Commenting on the importance of the limbic system, University of QLD presents it as our survival kit:
‘The limbic system is the part of the brain involved in our behavioural and emotional responses, especially when it comes to behaviours we need for survival … two of the major structures are the hippocampus and the amygdala…The hippocampus … is essentially the memory centre of our brains.
Here, our episodic memories are formed and catalogued to be filed away in long-term storage across other parts of the cerebral cortex. It is also important for spatial orientation and our ability to navigate the world. The hippocampus is … a key brain structure for learning new things.’…The left and right amygdalae play a central role in our emotional responses, including feelings like pleasure, fear, anxiety and anger. The amygdala also attaches emotional content to our memories, and so plays an important role in determining how robustly those memories are stored…Memories that have strong emotional meaning tend to stick… it also plays a key role in forming new memories specifically related to fear. Fearful memories are able to be formed after only a few repetitions. Suppressing or stimulating activity in the amygdala can influence the body’s automatic fear response, which kicks in when something unpleasant happens, such as a startling noise.’
Given the impact on the brain functions that enable children to learn and equip them for life, isn’t it reckless to administer hormone blockers to children? How is it logically and morally acceptable to administer these hormones to children with the aim of ‘pausing puberty’ to give them time to consider their identity when that very treatment retards their ability to make a mature considered decision? The centers that make such decisions are being blocked! This will inevitably cement gender confusion and funnel children towards irreversible and unnecessary surgery they will very likely come to regret. That’s the real harm of banning therapies to support children.
In its submission to the Queensland government The National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (NAPP) noted that psychotherapy and psychoanalysis were included in the Queensland Government definitions of conversion therapy. ‘There are different types of psychotherapy and these include supportive, cognitive behaviour therapy, psychodynamic, psychoanalytic, and brief psychotherapy. Psychotherapy as practised by psychiatrists as a treatment modality is not conversion therapy.’
NAPP acknowledge change is possible when underlying issues are addressed: ‘The focus of both sexual orientation and/or gender identity can change over the course of psychiatric treatment. This is not conversion therapy. A patient may experience a change in the object of their sexual attraction during a course of psychiatric treatment. For example, a patient with a psychotic disorder, who has delusions and hallucinations about men, may lose these symptoms as a result of psychiatric treatment. …During the treatment and recovery from an episode of depressive illness or anxiety disorder a patient may experience a change in sexual attraction or gender identity … Children and adolescents may temporarily have thoughts of being of a different gender to their gender assigned at birth due to the influences of social contagion, multiple psychosocial factors (including a history of sexual abuse), and the presence of psychiatric illness. …People who have undergone medical and surgical transgender treatment and subsequently regret this treatment should be acknowledged and not be banned from stating their experience on public media. Discussion of these concerns and fears with their physicians is not conversion therapy and must not be mislabelled as conversion therapy.’
The harm argument supporting a ban is no argument at all. This bill would do harm to fundamental freedoms, to adults with unwanted sexual attraction, to those with complex underlying mental health issues, and to community relationships between parents and teachers, between governments and health professionals. But most importantly it will set vulnerable kids on a harmful pathway of treatment that retards their ability to think straight, make decisions and navigate life ultimately ending in castrations, mastectomies and a whole host of other health issues.
Please don’t give me the harm argument for supporting this bill.
]]>I’ve been privileged to sit in refugee review meetings in support of Christian Pakistanis relaying their stories of systematic discrimination and persecution in Pakistan; parents in constant fear of their daughters being abducted if they’re returned. This is why they are married off well before they should be. And I’m privileged to live in a system that, while not perfect, still has room to make a case for justice and will offer people refuge.
I’ve assisted Arabic speaking women with conversational English and heard their stories. When domestic violence is addressed I’ve heard them say, ‘oh violence is just part of our culture and religion.’ But I don’t have the privilege of saying that. To do so would just be bigoted because I’m white I must remain silent. I sat with one African Saudi women who, regularly shunned by other Saudi women, experiences Arabic privilege. Many affirm its systematic.
Referencing working conditions in Saudi, Zareena Grewal, a professor of American and religious studies at Yale University, notes “Salaries are often dictated by not just the color of your skin but also what passport you have.” African American Salih Abdullah, decided to move from the United States to Saudi Arabia, because he thought he would have refuge from religious discrimination in a “Muslim utopia” abroad. It’s true being American put him in a privileged position compared to those from African or South Asian countries. But his views toward the blind or white privilege took a turn. “It's the systems of America where you find different types of oppression but in Saudi, it's the whole culture. It's just the way things are in every level, from institutions to the street, to, you know, pay at your job."
The persecuted indigenous peoples in Egypt and Iraq - Coptic Christians, Chaldeans and Assyrians – persecuted by their fellow citizens, are not the victims of white privilege. The child brides of the world are not, in the main, the victims of white privilege. They are all under-privileged for other reasons with many experiencing systematic racism in their own nations. We shouldn’t be blind to racism and privilege anywhere; including among our own. Human nature is a universal problem.
My Thai daughter-in-law made a comment recently about why many Thai women look for western husbands; and this despite western media portraying white males as the lowest of the low on the moral food chain. She said this is because Thai men often opt for more than one wife or partner and Thai girls desire the privilege of marital fidelity. Fair enough. That’s probably a universal desire and I accept, no one culture is free from infidelity. The impact of family infidelity, and the benefits of being raised in an intact loving family, has traditionally been accepted as a significant indicator of developmental life outcomes, or you could say ‘universal privilege.’
My thoughts about these things were triggered last year leading to some reflection on my own life and privilege. I’d invited La Trobe Lecturer Dr Yassir Morsi to share a platform with Muslim Reformer Dr Zuhdi Jasser in a public discussion on the merits of the Muslim Reform Movement. Having accepted the invitation, Morsi made his first statement by refusing to shake my extended hand and consequently advised me this was because I was a ‘bigot.’ When he took the platform, it was used to rant about white privilege rather than engage decently with the other speaker on the topic he was there to discuss. What struck me was how blind he seemed to be to his own privilege as an academic in an Australian university hailing from the dominant culture in Egypt. While minorities have suffered oppression in Egypt, Morsi was privileged to be raised by parents who, from memory, enabled him to be well educated in 3 countries. Yet his bitterness toward other Australians enjoying what he referred to as white privilege was palpable. Yes, I gather he was hurt. However, this encounter made me think about my own experience of being white and the assumed privilege which I genuinely struggle with.
When I was a child I was referred to in terms of being under-privileged. It had nothing to do with colour. Perhaps that’s why I’ve connected with those from difficult backgrounds over the years. I never met my father. I had a mother who eventually got her life in order but as a child I’d say my family had a triple A rating; that’s alcoholism, abandonment and abuse. I had a pedophile uncle. I lived with my grandparents on and off and my brother would be shipped to an aunt and uncle. We only lived together periodically and then shared a home with our violent step-father. I saw my brother thrown against the wall, heard my mother kicked up two flights of stairs and we both got the ‘twitch’ as punishment quite regularly. My brother had a similar issue with a pedophile relative and couldn’t cope, which was reflected in his behaviour. He was always yearning for mum and the natural dad we didn’t know. He got into lots of fights and committed suicide as a young man. I went to public schools. Back in the day, in the sunny New Zealand town of Whakatane, all the kids went to primary school barefoot just because we could. We were Maori and Pakeha (white) but barefoot together. Later I was a day student for 2.5 years at a Girls Grammar Boarding School in Auckland and despite not being Maori, I was invited to join the Maori Cultural Group. I even led it at times. As a 7-year-old, Christopher Enoka was my first crush. My best friend as a 10-year-old was Ann-Mieke Selderbeek and one of my favourite friends in secondary school was Siale Palalagi. I had the privilege of cross-cultural engagement all my life and I’m grateful for that. But I left home and school the day I turned sixteen because, unlike Dr Morsi, no one was willing to pay for further education for me and my mum’s partner didn’t want me around.
No, I didn’t have the privilege of an intact loving family, nor the privilege of a tertiary education. But I do have the privilege to write this now because I was sent to school and wanted to learn. A public school where anyone could go. I had the privilege through no virtue of my own of being born into a democratic capitalist society where second chances and a fair go were still possible. Where under-privileged sixteen year olds could still find a job in hospitality, offices, factories, in retail, and the options to be self-supporting were really there. I left New Zealand in my twenties and embraced Australia and all its opportunities, just like so many of my immigrant friends and those who now lament my white privilege.
I’ve lived in parts of Melbourne where those from lower socio-economic groups tend to reside – the coalface of multiculturalism where you don't see much privilege in any colour. You just see broad spectrum under-privilege. I think promoting ideas of privilege related to colour risks dividing communities who really are 'in it together" and may encourage black and white gangs with their allegiance to ‘my mob.’ Our society should not encourage this tribalism that can blind young people to the real opportunities generally available to all in Australia.
Teenagers whose life circumstances have already given them enough to deal with don't need to add anymore baggage to their backpack. My story is not uncommon. Universally, kids from under-privileged backgrounds are defined by broken families or substance abuse, violence or suicide and carry that pain. Ask our foster carers if they see colour or privilege in the faces of these kids. I found that forgiveness must precede any reconciliation with our past and believe that’s universal. i.e. these things don’t have to define anyone for life. These backpacks need to be dumped rather than added to.
I now have a business in regional Victoria and there’s a lot of under-privilege there too. Droughts, bushfires, farmers suiciding, Covid-19 and business shutdowns. They're not marching in the streets but they might be scratching their heads at the suggestion they are so privileged because they're predominately white. If we look whose living rough on our Melbourne streets we should see that hardship is blind to white privilege. Let’s get real. Centrelink doesn’t discriminate – human nature does. It’s not systematic.
Mark Connor says “If you are having trouble understanding the current “Black Lives Matter” marches around the globe, it could be because you, like me, have never been the target of racial discrimination.” With respect, I would say that it’s not black and white. Discrimination and privilege come in many shades. People in our community from all cultural backgrounds, suffer injustice and discrimination. No one should be treated abusively. No one should be classified as privileged or under-privileged by the colour of their skin. It's not telling the whole story. It’s scapegoating.
Recently in Sydney at the ‘Building Digital Resilience Conference’, a cross section of experts shared their thoughts about this unprecedented crisis affecting the development of children and teens, and offered solutions on how to tackle porn as a child safety concern rather than a censorship approach.
The presenters didn’t agree on everything, but they did agree on pornography as a potentially addictive ‘super-stimulus’ and serious public health issue. It was noted that our kids are in the middle of a porn epidemic and in need of education to inoculate them against its harmful impacts. This is a predatory industry that doesn’t just fuel human trafficking, but adds untold misery to a child’s human experience, normalising pain and trauma and increasing social anxiety.
The narrative or sexual scripts presented in mainstream porn is the antithesis to forming respectful relationships and healthy sex lives. Sadly, porn appears to be our youth’s main sexual educator and kids are viewing it earlier than ever before. Liz Walker presented data showing a 2019 study confirming that 65.5% of boys and 30% of girls first viewed porn by age 12 or younger. What they are being conditioned to, and potentially addicted to, is super-stimulus novelty, sexual aggression and dehumanizing behaviours that objectify sexual partners. That can’t be good for building healthy relationships, families or communities. Yet unlike tobacco, alcohol and gambling, there is little education about harms to porn users. Porn sites easily accessed by minors display explicit images including teen sex, brutality, rape and torture, yet offer no warning about the risk of trauma and addiction.
According to Dr Michael Flood, porn impacts how we treat others, shapes men’s sexual scripts and is ‘bad for men’s relationship with women.’ Flood went as far as to coin the phrase ‘rape training’ in his assessment of the influence of porn on youth. That’s an important message for educators and policy makers. Studies of best-selling porn videos confirm around 90% include gagging, choking and slapping, mainly directed at females; and with the increase in child on child violence, young adult sexual violence and violence against women, it appears copycat aggression is a real issue. Yet with all the public discussion and activism around increasing violence against women and the money spent on ways to address this, one must ask why we aren’t talking about the harmful impact of porn which incites some users. It’s not rocket science, but that’s not to say there isn’t plenty of science to support addressing this phenomena.
Like any other addiction, broken people who think they have no hope of freedom from their addiction suffer greater depression and are committing suicide. U.S. presenter Gabe Deem runs Rebootnation.org , an online forum that helps addicts and their partners overcome problems related to porn use. Deem personally confessed that he got to a point of ‘no hope’, believing he might be ‘broken’ forever and unable to have a normal sexual relationship. Thankfully, that wasn’t the case but at 23, his physical recovery to regain sexual function still took 9 months. He said it’s not just the content of pornography but the neuroplasticity of the brain, the ability of the brain to change, that leads to addiction, porn induced erectile dysfunction, extreme fetishes and other sexual disorders. Fortunately, neuroplasticity also allows for healing as new pathways are created in the brain to think differently during the reboot process.
Porn use is not just a flirtatious fling with fantasy but a detrimental habit taking its toll on young people socially, emotionally, mentally and also physically. Interviewees of various studies frequently cite pornography as the explanation for anal sex. There is an increase in interest in heterosexual anal sex which is clearly due to conditioning by porn, despite it often appearing ‘painful, risky and coercive, particularly for women.’ I was first confronted with the impact of this normalization of (heterosexual) anal sex and what this meant for young girls at the 2016 ‘Pornography & Harms to Children and Young People Symposium.’ At this event, retired Policewoman Susan McLean, testified that GP’s are seeing young girls presenting with injuries from trying to emulate the acts that they have seen online or they are pressured into trying. eChildhood’s Liz Walker, puts it more bluntly. Young girls are being ripped apart.
Porn can no longer be viewed as harmless entertainment offering a ‘peek-a-boo’ experience. It’s gone well beyond that with images that will even traumatize a mature adult. As Walker says of our pornified culture, “we didn’t vote for it.” She points out that according to the World Association for Sexual Health (WAS) Declaration on Sexual Rights, we have a right to be ‘free from torture and cruel, or inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment’ and a right to be ‘free from all forms of violence and coercion.’ Yet that’s actually the essence of mainstream pornography; the key educator of kids shaping their sexual attitudes and driving their sexual behaviours. Those most vulnerable to addiction of any kind are those who have already suffered trauma and as Walker highlights, the impact of exposure to porn can induce trauma and premature sexualisation – a form of child sexual abuse itself. But you don’t have to have ‘issues’ to be enticed into porn use. As a 12-year-old porn user, Deem maintains it’s not about issues but about curiosity and opportunistic viewing.
Restricting access implies censorship, yet this conference was not about censorship or shaming but simply about child safety. Keeping kids safe is in the public interest for a whole lot of reasons, but many might argue it’s just the right thing to do. There’s not a ‘single’ solution but a whole range of them. eChildhood’s Public Health Umbrella advocates Digital Solutions, Legislation and Policy Solutions, Education Solutions and Therapeutic Solutions, with a digital solution on the table right now. It’s called Age Verification and you can read all about it here.
Age Verification is a Digital Child Protection Buffer underpinned by legislation which places responsibility on the suppliers of pornography to ensure the customers using their sites have been age verified by a third-party secure site. This solution has been legislated in the UK and rolling out early 2020, creating penalties for those online pornographers who are non-compliant by blocking access to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and financial services. Most importantly, it stops minors from gaining access to potentially traumatizing images they can’t ‘unsee.’
The Australian Federal Government has announced an inquiry into age verification for online wagering and online pornography and you can support this by making a submission. If you believe that every child deserves a porn-free childhood, I encourage you to do so. You can even download step-by-step guidance on how to make your submission courtesy of eChildhood—it must be received by Friday 25 October 2019. People don’t want to talk about porn, but our policy makers need to hear the voices of ordinary Australians who care about this. It’s a public health issue we can no longer avoid talking about—and this government inquiry is a rare window of opportunity to take action on behalf of our kids.
___
David Marr describes the faith of Pell’s supporters in him as ‘depthless; proof against any evidence that might be brought to bear against him.’ Co-panellists on The Drum seemed similarly mystified as to how Pell’s faithful supporters could remain so in the face of the evidence. According to Marr, Australia can claim a ‘more than modest victory for the law’, and his unsought advice to supporters is to now accept it’s time to drop any ‘florid conspiracy theories.’
That’s a little unlikely. In the assessment of ‘the facts’, Marr and his co-panellists have overlooked a very important consideration which the Cardinal’s supporters, and all people of faith, will not easily be able to discount.
One would expect that Cardinal George Pell at 78 has not lost his faith in God. This being the case, he will be expecting to meet Him face to face in a higher court on the other side of life, where harsher punishment awaits any cardinal sins. One would expect that a guilty man at his stage of life maintaining his innocence would in fact have no fear of God. If Christ says it would be better to have a large millstone put around your neck and be cast into the sea than to cause a child to stumble, how much more trouble awaits a man that so tragically trainwrecks the life of children and then denies it. To accuse Pell of lying, would, it seems, be accusing him of having lost faith in God and any fear of Him. Can his supporters accept that he has become godless? Only by his own confession. A guilty God-fearing man would confess, repent, seek forgiveness and restitution in some way, and make ready to depart this world with a clearer conscience. That’s the only pathway. His continuing plea of innocence makes him either a godless liar or innocent.
It’s a dilemma. To accept the court determination that Cardinal George Pell is a paedophile is to reject the cardinal’s own confession, and subscribe to the idea that he’s a man without any fear of God, a liar who is prepared to face his Maker knowing he’s lying. If Marr and his doomsayers fully understood what they’re asking those close to Pell to accept, perhaps they may not be so mystified at the continuing support he receives in the face of what Gerard Bradley refers to as this ‘appellate setback.’
When it comes to the facts, Justice Mark Weinberg, as the dissenting judicial voice in squashing Pell’s appeal, has thrown a proverbial spanner in the works. His concern that the “prosecution relied entirely upon the testimony of the complainant to establish guilt, and nothing more’’ highlights a complete lack of supporting evidence on the part of the prosecution and as Justice Weinberg notes, ignores the evidence as a whole. In his judgment, there is a “significant possibility that the applicant in this case may not have committed these offences” which is why in good conscience, Weinberg had no choice other than to maintain his dissent. Like the first jury, this eminent lawyer, considered an expert in the criminal field and the most qualified criminal practitioner of the three on the Court of Appeal, believes the case for convicting Pell fails the reasonable doubt test. Hardly a ‘more than modest victory for the law.’
Archbishop Anthony Fisher said the ‘split decision among the judges is consistent with the differing views of the juries in the first and second trials, as well as the divided opinion among legal commentators and the general public. Reasonable people have taken different views when presented with the same evidence…” That is, reasonable people differ on whether there is reasonable doubt of Pell’s personal guilt with a general sentiment that he may be no more than the scapegoat ‘for the sins of the Fathers.’ The public remember the case of Lindy Chamberlain, who was wrongly convicted of murdering her baby daughter in 1982 in central Australia, and similarities are being drawn.
Critics like Marr may accuse Pell’s supporters of not accepting this judgment due to their depthless faith; however, Justice Weinberg’s detailed assessment casts the case for reasonable doubt, based in unsupported or contradictory fact. It will no doubt be the crux of the Pell case in Australia’s High Court.
]]>Flying across the Tasman in the 1980’s wasn’t really viewed as immigration but more like a cousin dropping in. Nevertheless, technically I’m an immigrant who has called Australia home for over 30 years. I have worked in the private and public sector, for small business, for a multinational corporation, been self-employed and am currently a small business owner and employer.
My working life started after school as a 14-year-old. I was employed in a Chinese Restaurant as a dishwasher 3 nights a week and my repertoire of adolescent jokes kept Mrs Fong, kitchen staff and cook in good spirits. These were the days before commercial dishwashers replaced the student.
My first real clerical position and experience in the public sector was as a clerk in the Chief Postmaster’s Office in Rotorua. I had to process leave applications and with a group of others, manually compute wages for employees within the Bay of Plenty region. Being more efficient than a government department demanded at that time, I requested a transfer to Telephone Services where the challenges were greater and I wasn’t left with time to fill in until the clock read 4:35pm. I later enjoyed a transfer to Tolls where I was a ‘cord and plug’ toll operator. That hints at my age.
Wages were stagnant and days seemed long so I stepped out of the safety of being a government employee into the private sector landing three casual jobs which I worked simultaneously; morning housemaid and breakfast waitress at the Travelodge and evening waitress at the DB Rotorua and Geyserland Hotels. From here I stepped into a receptionist role and fortuitously landed a role as Senior Guest Service Agent within the multinational Sheraton Hotel Corporation. Within 12 months I was promoted to Group Rooms Controller with three staff and oversight of all the group bookings, which at that time constituted 1/3 of the Sheraton Auckland hotels total rooms revenue. At 26 years of age I was transferred from Auckland to the Worldwide Sheraton Sales Centre in Sydney to take up the position as Sales Executive for them. Australia has been home ever since.
Marriage, motherhood and as a young mum, some success in home based direct sales, were followed by employment as a Recruitment Consultant. In addition to sourcing and selecting candidates for permanent roles, a large component of this consultancy was new business development. I felt at that time I had found my niche in the recruitment industry however my career was cut short when my son was diagnosed with childhood leukaemia. This exposed me to new challenges on every level. It also provided an unwanted but appreciated introduction to Australia’s healthcare system.
Some time out of the workforce allowed for voluntary contributions in a cross-cultural capacity to assist new arrivals with conversational English, official documentation and other general assistance. My husband and I have been homestay parents for a number of international students and engaged in many forums addressing sensitive social, cultural and political issues. I evolved into an author and public speaker publishing my first book in 2009. Political candidacy was a natural step.
Today I am both a political candidate and small business owner. Our family business in regional Victoria was established to make provision for our son and his wife, to offer them the dignity of work; hope and a future. Underemployment in Melbourne is an issue and this decision we made 2 years ago to take a risk and take on a regional business has paid off. Our son and his wife are now independent resident managers of our family motel business.
My husband is a carpenter and has either been self-employed or contracted in the building industry all his life. We are all hard workers. We are all taxpayers.
I am not an academic but have lived in the real world as an employee and employer. I am an immigrant, a cross-cultural worker, an author and small business owner. I have contributed to society and as a mother with a very sick child, been a grateful beneficiary of society.
As an Independent Candidate for Deakin, I trust that lived experience qualifies me to be a representative voice for all.
Authorised by Vickie Janson
]]>
It was for this very reason that this month I toured with Dr Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, to discuss the idea of separating mosque and state. I agree with his message and the premise for it. There are two legs, or two loves capable of providing that philosophical glue for citizens from genuinely diverse cultures and experiences to find a common identity; love and appreciation of liberty, and love and appreciation of nation state. Whether politically positioned on the right or left, a commitment from all citizens to do no harm to either the ideal of liberty or the nation we call home would go a long way to real social cohesion. This is a message for us all.
Clearly these are selfless ideals that affirm something other than ‘my identity, my heritage, my rights’ so this is not an easy sell to identity groups. This is a ‘for the greater good’ argument about making life better for all by privately and publicly conceding to the notion of liberty, which allows room for difference, room to ‘agree to disagree.’ On this tour with Jasser, we could agree to disagree on theology with no injury to ourselves or society, yet we knew we couldn’t afford to disagree on liberty. Love of liberty became the bond that united us. It’s also a matter of legacy and leaving a worthy legacy is without doubt a selfless pursuit.
Patriotism, the idea of loving your nation, isn’t promoted in Australia as it is in the US. In Australia, patriotism may be interpreted as veiled Nationalism or Fascism. Perhaps this is why Jasser was mocked in one interview when he suggested the only thing worth dying for in the free world was your country. He clarified this was because it’s the state that protects freedoms, democracy and human rights and these are worth fighting for. Yet it was suggested this kind of love of nation was ‘un-Australian.’ One wonders if the idea of legacy is also becoming un-Australian. Have we become so self-obsessed we are not willing to fight for the next generation to have the same freedoms we have enjoyed?
It should be a no brainer. Less self-control requires more state control. More state control results in less personal liberty. Less personal liberty results in a condition once referred to as bondage. The philosopher Vishal Mangalwadi wrote “What is liberty without virtue?” I’m with Jasser on this supporting the idea that for the free world to remain free, citizens need to stand on a couple of common values we consider virtues. Perhaps if we can credit love of nation and love of liberty as Australian virtues, we could stand together on these to straddle that widening right-left divide. That would be leaving a legacy.
Image source: Vector Stock
]]>My visit to Australia from the US was planned over a year ago for this week. In the immediate wake of the horrific, unspeakable act of terror at two mosques in Christchurch, I must first say to my Muslim brothers and sisters that I stand with you in the unqualified defence of religious freedom for every citizen in our nations. An attack on one faith is an attack on all. Terrorists target the vulnerable free amongst us because our liberty and its cohesive strength is the greatest obstacle to their supremacism and bigotry. We can never let their barbarism drive us apart.
Yes, I fear the rise of anti-Muslim bigotry. That sentiment is rising from many accelerants, not least of which is the West’s inability to resolve the growing conflict between the underpinnings of our liberal democracies and the theocracy of global Islamist movements. The best way to erode bigotry against Muslims is for our own communities to openly lead the defence of our respective homelands against Islamist ideological and security threats. Not only will Australia and our nations benefit and repair in the process, but Muslims who create reformist platforms could help push almost a quarter of the world’s population towards liberty.
Then, as our fellow citizens and social media platform contacts begin to see us as indispensable leaders for freedom, for our Constitution, and for our nation state identity, anti-Muslim bigotry will melt away. However, if we are contrarily seen as bystanders, perennial victims, in a domestic and global fight against theocrats within our faith and against the West, I fear the divide amongst us and within our nations will continue to widen.
Respect for any immigrant communities will not come by demand or by identity virtue-signaling. We as Muslims are a diverse community with many ideologies and theological interpretations, and yet, we are still looked upon as a monolith either all good or all bad. Both generalisations are false with an inherent bigotry of low expectations. The denial of this ideological diversity on various platforms only fuels bigotry from every direction. There is little difference between white supremacists fearful of ‘foreign invaders’ and militant Islamists who want to create a global caliphate and consider non-Muslim lands the ‘Land of War’ to be conquered.
Living in the lap of freedom, enjoying liberties our families in places like Syria can only dream of, I believe we have a unique opportunity and responsibility here in the West to take advantage of these liberties we are blessed with. For hundreds of years, inside the proverbial ‘House of Islam’ reformists have had little voice against the theological interpretations which inspire Islamist theocrats. For too long, the bandwidth of Muslim thought has been obstructed by Islamists who de-platform our speech through tyranny in Muslim majority nations and through identity politics in the West. It is time for liberal modern Muslims to advocate for secular democracies and universal human rights with the same vigour that Islamists advocate for a caliphate.
It was because my parents loved their faith that in 1966 they escaped the oppressive Ba’athist regime that turned Syria into an open-air prison in 1963. They immediately embraced Americanism and its attendant freedoms. In the small midwestern town I was raised, I never had a conflict between my faith and what it meant to be an American. My family has helped start, build and grow more than four mosques in the US. I served eleven years in the US Navy.
After 9/11 we formed the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and co-founded the Muslim Reform Movement in the West in order to confront the root cause of Islamist terror—political Islam. We see liberty and freedom and universal human rights of every individual equally under God and protected by our nation’s Constitution as central to our personal and national identity. We see its advocacy domestically sprouting roots globally as the solution to the oppressive tyrannies of most Muslim majority nations.
We seek to defend this identity of liberty through the Jeffersonian separation of mosque and state. It is time for our own faith community to live by the verse in the Qur’an in which God says to us, ‘Believers! Conduct yourselves with justice and bear true witness before God; even if it be against yourselves, your parents, or your kin’. (Qur’an 4:135).
For too long, our nations and we Muslims who live in the West have been diverted from working on actual legacy solutions to Islamist radicalism and instead retreated to balkanised, hyper-partisan corners. Radical Islamism is a Muslim problem that needs a Muslim solution. Militarily, we can only defer its byproducts, but not defeat it.
Make no mistake: many reform-minded Australian Muslims are left out of the conversation which is hogged instead by Islamist apologists and identity politicians. Both extremes, left and right, of identity politics are ripping our nations apart and the best way to begin to bring us back to our united roots is for patriotic Muslims to reclaim our love for our homeland by leading centuries-overdue reform against jihadists, misogynists, bigots and other tyrannical Islamist theocrats.
We must publicly engage and empower counter-Islamist pro-freedom leaders and movements within and outside the House of Islam. Islamist jihadism inspires not only rogue terror organisations, but it also inspires many established Muslim majority governments and their political movements. Today’s neo-caliphate is the OIC from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Qatar all the way to Turkey. These regimes directly inspire Islamist terrorism in order to intimidate the West into passivity and isolationism while legitimising their dictatorships. This week, Turkey’s President Erdogan horrifically used clips of the Christchurch terror to whip up his campaign rallies into a fervour against the West. Islamists will exploit any terror whenever they can.
We must break this cycle. Find our Muslim Reform Movement Declaration online and discuss its precepts with Muslims, or their leaders, about why they would or would not sign on to its principles. We believe it to be a firewall that clearly delineates the difference in values between those who are Islamist identity apologists and those who are patriotic Australians who just happen to be Muslim. It is about time that we all have this essential national conversation. If we cannot have it in the West, then where?
Foreword by Vickie Janson:
This collection of articles offer a snapshot of Muslim Reformist Dr Zuhdi Jasser preceding his March 2019 Islam + Islamism Tour in Australia. Jasser claims we need a ‘jihad against jihad’ to defend western secular democracy. Some will cry ‘alarmist’ and hotly contest the need for an American born Muslim to wage an ideological war within the House of Islam. But let’s face it; there are some alarming activities within the House, even in Australia.
At the Sydney 2007 Hizb ut- Tahrir conference I purchased a book called Democracy is a System of Kufr (infidel). This instructed Australian Muslims that it was forbidden to adopt, implement or call for democracy and in support of this, one lecture offered a three-point plan on how to overturn democracy and impose the Islamic State. The ideological struggle to alter public opinion was point 2 in this grand plan. It is this pre-cursor to violent Islamism, the non-violent ideological war, which Jasser maintains we must address head on as the root cause of terrorism. Non-violent dawah, the ideological mission and violent jihad, are two sides to the same coin. Whatever way that coin falls its heads up for global Islamists.
These pages challenge governments and ordinary citizens to stand on the side of all liberty minded people, Muslim and non-Muslim, and offer hope for a healthier free and democratic future for all.
He is the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. He and other Reformers aim to ‘inoculate (fellow) Muslims with the ideas of universal freedom within the Islamic consciousness.’ They believe that a reformed Islamic narrative can act as a bulkhead to the sharia and caliphate concepts which they say are undermining western democracies, universal human rights and are the catalyst to radicalisation.
It may be warring and challenging language but Jasser maintains there is a civil war within Islam and a need for western governments, who all too often ‘appoint arsonists to put out the fires,’ to unite on the side of Muslims who stand for peace, universal human rights, and secular governance. That will require adopting a more nuanced approach in order to recognise them. Identifying markers have been documented in the Muslim Reform Movement’s Declaration supporting liberal secular democracy and human rights.
It’s not just Islam in the wars. Society in general appears to be more divided on political and human rights issues with faith affiliation no longer the unifying force it once was. Asia Bibi is a case in point. The British government led by a Prime Minister who is a vicar’s daughter, made it clear this vulnerable Pakistani Christian woman who had suffered greatly under Pakistan’s Blasphemy laws was not welcome in the UK. By contrast, a British trade envoy who was a Muslim and son of an imam resigned his post, partly because of his governments’ refusal to welcome in Asia Bibi.
The values that Reformers identify as transcending faith are rooted in the ideas of liberty. Liberty-minded citizens promote freedom of belief and speech, and Islamists (and others) punish it and promote blasphemy and apostasy laws.
In essence, the prescribed remedy for radicalisation is not found in any interfaith movement, but in embracing citizenship of the free world which necessitates making a clear distinction between Islam and Islamism (political Islam), the latter needing to be abrogated. Reformers maintain political Islam is the root cause of Islamist radicalisation. Where others cry ‘lone wolf, Jasser cries known wolf.’
Commenting in 2013 on a western Sydney imam’s losing battle with programs countering terrorism, Maajid Nawaz, a former radical himself who spent 13 years inside Hizb ut-Tahrir, said the community had to "aggressively claim the middle ground". Read the full article here.
Jasser is indeed aggressively claiming it. Exactly where that middle ground is located on the left-right spectrum is up for discussion in Melbourne and Sydney March 2019. Jasser will be joined in public meetings by notable Australian Muslim academics and leaders, Dr Mehmet Ozalp, Dr Zuleyha Keskin, Yassir Morsi and non-Muslim lecturer in Islamic Studies Dr Bernie Power, to discuss the merits and challenges of the Muslim Reform Movement.
Some Australians argue Islam can’t be reformed, others take the position Islam doesn’t need to and others may find a glimmer of hope in public conversations reflecting a greater ideological diversity in Islam than imagined. One thing is certain, people from different persuasions can and do reform enabling them to see things differently. Whether the Doctor’s remedy to radicalization will be swallowed or not, that may be the spoonful of honey that makes the medicine go down.
Details of Meetings:
Melbourne meeting on 12th March 2019
Melbourne meeting on 13th March 2019
Sydney meeting on 16th March 2019
Part 1: Historical Context
The plight of religious minorities, particularly Christians and Yazidis, in Iraq has the world asking: How did a land where Christianity existed for millennia become the world’s most dangerous place for Christians and other minority faiths? The spread and growth of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (Levant) (ISIS) has placed the existence of Christian and Yazidi faithful and other minorities at risk like never before. Yet, ISIS did not come out of thin air. It is the result of a perfect storm—the 50-year trajectory of historical, political, and sectarian religious forces in both Syria and Iraq meeting the wake of the ongoing Syrian Revolution. Understanding the evolution of ISIS as a byproduct of Syrian tyranny, the revolution, and Iranian imperialism in the region helps to explain ISIS’s success in Iraq and Syria and reveals possible long term solutions.
As the son of Syrian immigrants, political refugees from the prison Syria became in the early 1960s under the Ba’athist Party regime, my lens for the horrors of the Syrian conflict is particularly personal and palpable. Almost every day we communicate with family living in fear in Aleppo and Damascus.
The Syrian Ba’ath Party, an Arab nationalist socialist party, seized power by military coup in 1963. The Alawite (a Shi’a offshoot) faction of Ba’ath Party loyalists then took power in another bloody coup in February 1966. After the Alawite coup of 1966, the fascist Ba’ath Party transformed its predominantly supremacist political platform to incorporate Alawite religious sectarianism. Members of Sunni Muslim leadership were purged from the military. The entire leadership became comprised of Alawite Ba’athist faithful. Sunni, Christian, Druze, and Islami influence was all but eliminated. Non-Alawite officers who were ousted reported that in the late 1960s and early ‘70s Syria was on the verge of a sectarian civil war.
But, in 1970, Hafez al-Assad took the reins from his fellow Alawites in another coup. Assad, in line with the totalitarian doctrine of the Ba’athist Party, ruled Syria with an iron fist for 30 years. Al-Assad ended the Ba’ath Alawite in-fighting and the regime cleansed any non-Alawites in its midst, obliterating any Sunni protestations within or outside the party. To quell religious sectarian unrest, Assad placed a few party loyalists who were Sunni, Christian, and Druze in mid-level and a few higher levels of political, but not military, leadership, though most knew them to be window dressing and sympathizers.
The Syria of Hafez Assad was much like the Iraq of Ba’athist Saddam Hussein, described by a pseudonymous expatriate as “A Republic of Fear”: “a regime of totalitarian rule, institutionalized violence, universal fear, and unchecked personal dictatorship.” Many of our Syrian families, after suffering for years in and out of prison, muzzled in every form of expression left for American freedom after realizing that a revolution to topple one of the world’s most ruthless military tyrannies would likely never materialize in their lifetimes.
The Assad regime paralyzed the humanity of 22 million Syrians for two generations using incalculably cruel methods. Brothers, sisters, families reported on one another to Syrian intelligence (Mukhabarat); many vanished, never to be seen again; and anyone who dared dissent from the ruling party was systematically tortured and made an example with frequent collective punishment. By the twenty-first century, there would come to be more Syrians living outside Syria than inside, and some analyses claim that one in nine expatriates living abroad provided steady information to the Assad regime on expatriate Syrian activities in order to spare family. The Syrian Human Rights Committee has chronicled many of the atrocities committed in the past 45 years by the Assad regime: the Hama Massacres of 1963, 1982, and again in 2011, Tadmur, and the countless prisoners of conscience systematically snuffed out by the regime.
Although the Assad regime tolerated some religious difference where it did not interfere with political objectives, that meager toleration began to deteriorate into the religious catastrophe that has characterized the Syrian Revolution as a result of two key factors. First, in the 1980s the secular Alawite Ba’athist party began a deep alliance with theocratic, Khomeinist Iran. The Assad regime came under the monolithic influence of a Shi’a crescent from Iran to Syria and Lebanon (vis-à-vis Hizballah). Syria helped Iran in the bloody Iraq-Iran war and, especially after Bashar al-Assad‘s 2000 ascent to power, began a major increase in economic, military and cultural cooperation with Iran. With Iran came it’s anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and anti-Sunni ideology. Iran’s Khomeinist regime is not only one of the world’s worst offenders of religious freedom but also sponsors Islamist terrorism, including progeny terror groups like Hizballah. Its own theocratic version of Shi’a Islam is a militant misogynistic supremacist version of Shi’a Islamism. The Alawites were all too willing to allow this intolerant influence to permeate Syrian culture. Assadist Ba’athists maintained military and governmental control, letting Khomeinists infiltrate the nation.
Second, the Assad regime’s brewing intolerance mirrored regional militant Sunni Islamist ideologies from Saudi Arabia (Wahhabism), Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar (Muslim Brotherhood (MB)). Due to Islamist media dominance, and the departure of liberal refugees the ideological trajectory of Syria’s Sunni population was also increasingly fundamentalist. Nothing illustrates this systemic radicalization campaign better than how Assad maintained close relations with the Iranian backed terror group Hizballah and its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah while also providing sanctuary for the exiled leadership of the Sunni terror group HAMAS (an MB offshoot) and its leader Khaled Mashal until almost a year after the revolution started.
When the Arab Awakening and revolution came to Syria in 2012, these two radicalizing currents, which affected both Shi’a and Sunni Muslims, created fertile ground for sectarian violence and the growth of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.
Part 2: Contemporary Problems and Solutions
In March 2011, the Arab Awakening came to Syria, bringing a long overdue opportunity for reform. But the vacuum it created skyrocketed the influence of both Shi’a and Sunni regional Islamist movements. Minorities like Christians were increasingly caught in the middle of the bloody crossfire between Shi’a and Sunni Islamists and secular Ba’athists, working hand in glove with the Shi’a Islamists.
This cauldron of political repression and sectarian conflict was set afire with the revolution of 2011 in Syria. Yet, the revolution began in rural Syria in towns like Dar’aa as a predominantly secular, political pluralistic revolt united against Assadist, Ba’athist tyranny. Initially few religious freedom issues surfaced.
But in 2012 the conflict collapsed into its sectarian roots as unarmed civilians were massacred in the streets, in their homes and at work by barrel bombs, chemical weapons, helicopter gunships and raiding gangs (shabiha) who savaged neighborhoods, torturing, raping, murdering, and imprisoning, and leaving over 100,000 dead and 1 million displaced.
The regime had adopted a strategy of “divide and conquer,” exploiting sectarianism, and as the conflict developed in 2012, this strategy began to work. The government released thousands of militant Sunni Islamists from jails. Large numbers of radical foreign Sunni jihadists started to flow into Syria, and their Shi’a equivalent, Hizballah Shi’a jihadists, arrived to fight alongside the Syrian military.
As a result, the Free Syria Army (FSA) found themselves no longer up against the regime alone, but fighting an emerging battle on many fronts against Assad’s military and factions of militant Islamists—a situation that smashed the fighting resolve of minority groups like Christians, Druze, and anti-Ba’athist Alawites.
This process allowed the formation, growth, and militarization of ISIS in northeast Syria. The “moderate” (non-Islamist) wings of the FSA steered clear of the ISIS fanatics and focused on defeating the Syrian military. ISIS, conversely, left the Syrian military virtually alone as they viewed their initial existential enemy to be moderate Sunni Muslims who would reject their Islamist supremacism and authority. Similarly, the Assad military left ISIS virtually alone (the Wall Street Journal described it as an entente) as their continued existence gave the Syrian military a way to rally global sentiment against the revolution while they decimated the greatest existential threat to Assadist Ba’athism and its alliance with Iranian Khomenism: moderate democratic-minded Sunni Muslims. So, while ISIS grew, the genocide against Sunni Muslims continued. The conflict in Syria has now left over 250,000 dead and 5 million displaced, 90 percent of whom are Sunni Muslim.
Systematic savagery by the Syrian regime against predominantly Sunni Muslims and selective Saudi and Qatari funding of radical Islamist wings of the FSA fueled an unprecedented Sunni radicalization. While the FSA and Syrian government were both shrinking in size and power, ISIS was the only growing entity in Syria. ISIS continued to grow faster and was able to spread to Iraq, dissolving “secular” borders and claiming a caliphate under Sheikh Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Few predicted how significant the ability of radical Islamist movements like ISIS would be to fill the vacuum created in Syria.
ISIS has created, in areas it controls, the world’s most horrific situation for religious minorities like Yazidis, Christians, Assyrians, Kaldeans, and Druze. These minorities, as well as dissenting Sunnis, are systematically tortured, raped, and murdered. Their sacred holy places and sacred texts, symbols, and history are destroyed and their worship practices prohibited.
Solving the religious freedom catastrophe in Syria and Iraq must be viewed through the lens exactly how ISIS emerged. ISIS is an unhinged outgrowth of militant Islamism manifest directly from Wahhabism and various forms of Salafism throughout the Arab world but especially Saudi Arabia. The growth of ISIS is a result of a perfect storm of, first, a genocidal Syrian government, second the radicalization of Sunni Muslims in Syria and Iraq, and third an Iraqi government incapable of mounting strong resistance to ISIS.
This analysis teaches that the only solution is a military one, which ends both ISIS and the Assad regime. They are two sides, Sunni and Shi’a, of the same radicalizing coin, feeding off of sectarian animus and divisions. The only option that may restore a nation that before the revolution had the most diverse population in the Middle East is a post-Ba’ath, post-ISIS Syria. ISIS cannot be defeated in Iraq without decisively destroying their command and control in Northeast Syria in and around Raqqa. And the decimation of ISIS alone will only delay the formation of another radical Islamist group if the Assad military remains intact and in place.
Make no mistake: The fact that long before the Arab Awakening there were virtually no Jews remaining in Arab nations speaks volumes to the disastrous trajectory of religious freedom in the Middle East. The population of Christians in Iraq, too, has declined precipitously as so-called secular regimes became closely aligned with radical Islam. Saddam Hussein “relocated” Christian communities and oversaw an almost 50 percent decrease in the Iraqi Christian population from 1.4 million in 1987 to 800,000 in 2003. Since then, with Ba’athism and Islamism cornering minorities, the number of Christians in Iraq has decreased to 300,000. The population is plummeting again in Iraq and Syria as ISIS marks their homes for genocide with “N” for Nazarene.
The only way for religious freedom, the first freedom, to find life in Iraq and Syria is for the revolution against the twin tyrannies of Assadist Ba’athism and ISIS’ Islamism to be realized. Things will get worse before getting better, but to deny the need for revolution against tyranny is to accept the return of a false quiet. In the last 50 years many perceived a period of quiet for religious sectarian animus. Really, a period of mass imprisonment, and sectarian monopoly was festering in a cauldron of religious divisions. The Assad regime used those divisions to justify its brutality in a cycle that must end if genuine religious freedom is to have any hope in Syria or Iraq. And countering the social media recruitment of ISIS jihadis around the planet is not enough. We need a program of positive messaging from Muslims for religious liberty in addition to that against religious extremism and supremacism. Urgency is essential: If the religious diversity of Syria is lost, so too will be its greatest hope of emerging from this horrific battle between the savagery of radical Sunni and Shi’a Islamists and the Assad Ba’athist killing machine.
__________
Written by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser and re-published with permission. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, an organization dedicated to preserving American founding principles by directly countering the ideologies of political Islam.
This piece was originally authored as a two-part series on March 18 and 19, 2015 for the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs.
Banner photo courtesy of Flickr user Al Jazeera English
]]>It has been quite a journey.
Nearly 10 years ago I responded to Waleed Aly’s book People Like Us: How Arrogance is Dividing Islam and the West. Aly claimed to offer a real conversation about Islam in a western context. As this was a conversation my husband Michael and I had actively attempted to engage in with many Australian Muslims, I took the opportunity to respond to Aly via my book Ideological Jihad. I wrote this as an open letter to Aly.
Here I attempted to connect the dots between the Islamic mission we had witnessed in Australia and the growing concern of many Australians about the undermining of core freedoms and human rights which were facilitated through the expression of political Islam. I learnt that religious beliefs have political consequences.
I also learnt through Islamic lectures in Melbourne that dawah (Islamic mission) and jihad (striving, sometimes violently, in the cause of Allah) could be two sides to the same coin. Either way that coin fell, it appeared it was ‘heads up’ for Islamists with Islamic state aspirations. This was the fundamental nature of the Islam we were exposed to in Australia; purely political with a break for prayers.
‘Ideological Jihad’ was the end result of a close friendship with an Egyptian mum who radicalized. After it was published I met a Malaysian woman named Zalifah. She didn’t fit nicely into the framework of Islamic teaching we’d been exposed to but as an individual, Zalifah had also moved from ‘one Islam to another.’ Ie her Islam wasn’t politically motivated at that time, but she confessed, it once had been. There was a time in her youth when a suicide mission would have been something to consider. We are still the deepest of friends.
Due to safety concerns, the name of the subject of this article has been concealed. She will be referred to as Mrs Y. Having been a victim of socialist oppression in her country of birth, she asks ‘why are we seeing this here?’
Mrs Y came to Australia with her parents in 1983. Her parents were foundational leaders of the Polish political party Solidarity, which in the face of communism was formed to fight for freedom and democracy. The Australian government sponsored her family as Political Refugees.
Mrs Y knows firsthand the impact of Communism in Poland after the Second World War. As a citizen, she experienced the oppression and the introduction of Martial law with its suppression of core freedoms. Freedom of thought and speech, education, and religion were crimes against the state.
Her experience is chilling. The communist way of life not only led to children’s camps and mass brain washing but survival itself. Food, clothing and other essential items were rationed according to a coupon system. For example, a family was only permitted to consume 1.5kg of red meat per month. In winters of -20 degrees, Mrs Y recalls standing in long queues for up to 36 hours for the basics: milk, bread, and thinks like toilet paper.
All schools were government run and military conduct was part of the curriculum, even for 9 year olds. Mrs Y was threatened that if she went to church there would be severe consequences for her family. As a child, Mrs Y lived with fear for simply holding a Christian worldview. This wasn’t a phobia, but a realistic fear.
The Solidarity party and the Catholic Church stood strongly opposed to the tyranny of Communism and their stance was a catalyst to the introduction of Martial Law. 13 December 1981 brought Martial Law up close and personal with the forceful and violent removal of Mrs Y’s father from the family home. The Police militia also broke her mother’s spine and Mrs Y and her two siblings were left alone as children; abandoned, bruised and emotionally broken.
Mrs Y’s father was transported to a prison near the USSR border in Wlodawa and it was planned he and other Solidarity leaders would be transported to Siberia’s death camps. The nation was in a state of emergency and the army was deployed with full force of armoury: tanks, guns and tear gas grenades. A 7pm curfew was imposed and there were many arrests, beatings and mass killings. Citizens found walking the streets after the curfew would be shot dead on sight.
Mrs Y says that ‘by the grace of God and the charity of the Australian government, their family was welcomed to Australia.’ She is very grateful and loves Australia. Her parents worked hard putting her and her 2 siblings through university enabling them all to pursue careers. Her sister has a PHD in Chemistry and is a Pharmacist, her brother completed two degrees in mechanical engineering and computing and is currently employed in IT management. Mrs Y has a Diploma in Psychology and is a Registered Nurse. She is married with 3 children who all have a Catholic Primary School education. The family attend a Catholic Church in Cranbourne.
This is where life begins to go belly up once again but this time in increasingly socialist Victoria.
Having heard about the Safe Schools Program 2 years earlier, Mrs Y was concerned when her son went to Public High School this year, and she learnt the school curriculum included it. She made an appointment with the school for more information but in an hour-long appointment, Mrs Y wasn’t actually given any information about content and was dismissed with the assurance ‘it’s not what is advertised in the media.’ So, what is it then?
Mrs Y left the school knowing nothing more about the program, and she was cautioned and left frustrated. Ignorance is not always bliss and the result was that trust between school and parent had been breached. She wrote to the school advising she did not give permission for her son to participate in this program and did receive a reply assuring that her wishes would not be ignored. But Mrs Y was cautious about the type of education shaping her children’s worldview. She has witnessed firsthand the political grooming of children and is horrified at the prospect of sexual grooming. (That’s her way of expressing what she’s learnt about the program).
Mrs Y took to social media because she thought Australia was a free country and FaceBook (FB) an available platform in the public marketplace of ideas. She became a FB follower of Politicalpostingmumma (PPM) sharing evidenced based material she found there. She also shared her own research into the Safe Schools Program.
Despite holding what she considered to be intellectual, respectful and cautious conversations on this platform, after a few days she was logged out of her account by FB. Via Messenger, Mrs Y also received threats from Paul Fry who had introduced himself as a gay man. He said he’d made screen shots of her and other FB users posts, and was going to sue them all! She was also vulgarly mocked by Simon Hunt (aka Pauline Pantsdown), who had screen shot her comments and shared them with others.
Despite contacting FB for assistance, they didn't reply to Mrs Y and she learnt that PPM and others were also being logged out of their accounts by FB for their opinions and were receiving threats from gay activists. They were being bullied and silenced into conformity - an all too familiar socialist tactic.
Mrs Y created a new FB account and continued to actively support PPM and post her own findings making it clear she would vote No for same-sex marriage. A strong believer in public debate, Mrs Y felt free to post comments on FB with her concerns about same-sex marriage, the Safe Schools Program and show support for Pauline Hanson’s political statement in wearing the burka in to parliament. Stunt or statement – she thought it was up for debate and of public interest.
When Mrs Y heard an interview with ACL’s Lyle Shelton mentioning he is aware of other people being bullied by gay activists, she identified with this and confidently made a comment on the interview thread. About 10pm that night she saw a video clip from ABC’s Monday night Q & A program which used children as political instruments to actively push for gay marriage. Mrs Y was horrified, likening this to child abuse and exploitation. Here were 9-12-year-olds forming ‘The Children’s Party’ for ‘marriage equality.’
Familiar with the socialist tactic of indoctrinating children through formal education to be more aligned with state dictates than parents values, Mrs Y commented on FB asking whether parents knew about this and had given their consent for the children’s participation in a political party. Within 10 minutes she was again shut down by FB who are now asking her to prove her identity by providing her photo licence, passport, bills with details, school/ group magazine subscriptions, and bank statements.
No explanation was given for shutting her down or for why she should need to provide identification documents which are not required to set up a FB account.
As a fellow Australian, Mrs Y is a strong supporter of the Australian Constitution, the rights of citizens (including freedom of speech and expression of cultural and religious identity) and doesn’t understand why her voice is being silenced on issues related to public morality which impact her and her family. She is being bullied and harassed by the very community that claims itself to be bullied and harassed, sometimes even to suicide.
In her view, the same-sex marriage advocates in this public debate use aggressive bullying and vulgarity to silence the public. As in her communist past, Mrs Y asks ‘why this illusion? It seems to be already decided for us with manipulated information and bullying tactics.’ This is shattering the Australian ‘fair go’ many migrants and asylum seekers came for.
We could all ask, 'tell me why, they don't have a voice?'