Shouts from the desert

[Ed: This feminist perspective on riots and racism was submitted over the weekend. It is a well written and certainly thought-provoking discussion of the practical limits of tolerance. Please note the author's licence to redistribute at the end. From here on, the content is the unedited work of the author]

THE GREAT BRAIN ROBBERY ... the political response in Australia to the Sydney beachside riot

What inexplicable, strange, and disturbing things have we witnessed this New Year!

We have seen Christian leaders giving a Christmas address to Australia denouncing racism, and only racism, as they always do, and conspicuously saying, in effect "sexism and homophobia are solid Christian values which we defend, through our silence and through our support for others who share our prejudices".

We have also seen John Howard, the Prime Minister of this conservative country, expose his homophobic prejudices in a public outburst in response to a question by the media regarding his opinion of the new same-sex marriage law which has just been passed in Britain and which has been joyously celebrated in London, notably with the celebrity marriage of singer-songwriter Elton John. His response to whether Australia would now follow suit was revealing of the Prime Minister as, taken by surprise and unrehearsed, he was unable, on this occasion at least, to suppress his obvious personal hatred of gay and lesbian people.

We have also witnessed on our television screens a demonstration by thousands of people in Sydney who were set upon by police brandishing whips and batons against people bearing only little conservative navy-blue Australian national flags on small sticks. These people were demonstrating against Islam and its even more conservative, sexist and homophobic attitudes - more conservative, that is, than those of Cardinal George Pell and those of the Prime Minister John Howard.

For under such beliefs did the Taliban flourish - homosexuality is a capital offence punishable by death, and women are subject to the rule of men, and all must submit to "God" - because Islam translates as "submission to God" and in pure Islam the state and the religion of Islam are one - there is no separation of church and state!

Women, especially lesbians, and gay men are discriminated against in Islam to the point of being murdered by the state for being who and what they are. This is ethically deplorable, and should be condemned by any human being who is sensitive to senseless suffering in others, who values liberty, equality, human dignity and our common humanity.

But despite all of the attention they received and the stir that was created by their actions in high places, the people involved were not given a chance to individually express their various opinions in the media, but were collectively branded and demonised as racists.

But were they opposed to black people? No! Apparently, they were only opposed to some of the other light-brown skinned people, whom it may be said are "white", anyway - it is a matter for splitting hairs and speculation as to the true meaning of this term, since the Sydney beachside demonstrators were themselves, for the most part, also light-brown skinned, but were identified by the media and politicians as being most definitely "white". But in the simplified and uncritical view of the Australian media and in the eyes of conservative politicians and the police the beachside protestors were generically dismissed as "racists", and as such they had no right to an opinion and so they were easily and effectively processed and packaged to suit the requirements of the government propaganda machine: The verdict was predictable - they were nothing more nor less than an embarrassment to Australia that had to be dealt with by enacting yet more police and security legislation to control unrest.

And so, this inconvenient fact was never addressed.

Why not? Is it a banned opinion to be against the set of rules and beliefs which together constitute and which literally are Islam?

If so, is this not, then, the denial of fundamental social freedoms, such as freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of opinion?

The origin of the grievances held by these young people, and which was the reason for the demonstration, seemed to be based not upon race, but upon opposition to ultra-conservative attitudes and beliefs, and specific undesired actions that resulted from those attitudes.

If demonstrating against a set of attitudes or beliefs, and/or demonstrating against people who appear to most strongly hold and express those attitudes and beliefs is now illegal, then how can democracy function or social progress occur?

And if people who are opposed to homophobia and/or sexism are now to be branded and censored as "racists" then sexism and homophobia have been officially legitimised - Australia has come full circle from the 'seventies and 'eighties!

We have, individually and collectively, struggled against sexism and homophobia for thousands of years. We have also struggled to overcome racial slavery and racism itself. We have struggled, in Western culture and beyond, to defeat tyranny, bigotry and prejudice. And we have come a long way! In so doing, those who have struggled the most, those who have been most outspoken, those who have stood at the forefront in defence of these universal human values, have usually suffered even more than those who gave in to social pressure - because they also suffered official and social censure and retribution.

The "we", who have struggled, have suffered, and our suffering was not in vain, for we have achieved a great deal - social progress which reflects technological and scientific progress. But as victims of prejudice, discrimination, misogyny, patriarchy, homophobia and sexism, the price "we" paid for progress was great indeed, more for some than others. "We" have been humiliated, tortured, burnt alive, censured, censored, pilloried, disenfranchised, and enslaved as economic "goods and chattels" - we have overwhelmingly and disproportionately been the victims of all forms of prejudice and bigotry. And to add further insult it is overwhelmingly the victims who have been, and who continue to be blamed for, the indignities and fates that they suffer, not the perpetrators - because the perpetrators are the very people who are in power and control, and who therefore have the ability to distort social perceptions to suit their own ends. This scientifically observed human social behaviour is the social syndrome described in the field of Sociology as "blaming the victim".

Islam is a set of beliefs and set of rules set out in a small book, the Koran, which its followers claim to be "the word of God given to his Prophet Mohammed". It is holy writ to its followers. As such it is comparable to fundamentalist Christianity, which is most prevalent in the US. The central and basic principle followed and believed by a Christian fundamentalist can be expressed as: "Every word in the Bible is true and is the word of God". (Note the similarities!) But while both groups, ironically, claim the same lineage, "God" has spoken differently to each - a cause, in itself, of a great number of deaths and of great and prolonged human suffering over many centuries, and which continues today, just as it did during the Crusades. Is the cause of this perpetual conflict, which currently erupts in such diverse and exotic places as Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia - including Aceh province and Ambon, in the Philippines, in Southern Thailand, in Kashmir and in France and now Australia ... based upon race or beliefs?! Is Catholicism a race? Is the Uniting Church a race? Would a hypothetical conflict between Protestants and Roman Catholics - the gods forbid! - be most likely to be motivated by race or belief?

There appears to be different sets of standards being applied here, and elsewhere, to people who oppose religion when they are not themselves members of a religion. If so, the obvious question is: "Who sets these standards?”.

Also, one might innocently ask: "What is the agenda of the people who set these standards? Are they opposed to a secular society?".

If this did turn out to be the case, then what, if anything, do they intend to replace a free secular society with? And to what extent will they go, if permitted, to suppress the philosophical values of a free humanistic secular society in order to achieve these and/or any other goals that they may have? What have they achieved so far, and what power do they have to further change society?

What may be at stake is whether a free secular society can survive alongside Islam.

In Australia, it appears that those who defend Islam by branding those who oppose it as "racists" are abusing the term "racism" in order to disguise and defend their own misogynist, homophobic and sexist attitudes. Racism should be condemned, but should not sexism and homophobia equally be condemned?

John Howard's and George Pell's own brands of conservatism and prejudice may not be as strong as is that of many of those who still blindly follow the doctrines set out by a man named Mohammed but it serves their purposes to defend his followers. They, and other prominent and powerful people in Australia, do not support modern Western values.

But what are the Australian conservative elite lending their powerful political support to?

Over a thousand years ago, during the Dark Ages, a small book of strange ideas (by modern western standards) became a best seller. Unfortunately for us now, the author unoriginally, but very effectively for those historically and culturally unremarkable times, claimed that these ideas were given to him by "Allah" or "God", and now there are a billion people who are still convinced, despite all rational arguments that have persuaded Western civilisation to the contrary, that this small book contains absolute and universal truth, that all children born to them are Muslims, by definition, and that any and all apostates among them are criminals. This appears to be an intolerant set of assumptions, on the surface, and yet it is those who oppose those assumptions, and other such assumptions which are included in this book, who are now being described as the intolerant amongst us.

Is it permissible to condemn racism and at the same time to hide behind the followers of the Koran (who are themselves defending their own prejudices by hiding behind a small book from an age that Western people call "the dark ages") in order to support Christian-based intolerance and discrimination without committing hypocrisy?

Is it possible that both Christian and Muslim alike are expressing strong moral condemnation of racism while at the same time committing and defending prejudice and discrimination, sexism and homophobia, political and social censorship of ideas and opinions, especially humanistic and socially ethical and idealistic viewpoints ... in the name of a small book which expresses very cruel and ignorant social values?

Surely, if they were doing such a thing it would be obvious to everyone, and everyone would be talking about it in amazement that these prominent people ever thought they could get away with such a thing?! The strange thing is the silence that abounds ... with regard to all the open hypocrisies being loudly and brazenly committed at the top of society, there is a deadly - and most unhealthy - silence!

The people who follow this small and powerful book have brought our darkest history back into our modern world. And that has created a nightmare for our society, which is now, almost entirely based upon human values, a society which is the result of millennia of struggle and suffering in which we have done so much to expunge those very same negative values and attitudes that this book and its followers espouse. We have struggled so in the name of universal values of human freedom and equality. Is this struggle now come to an end?

If the title of this book were "Mein Kampf" would there be as many people willing to defend its blind followers? Did not Adolf Hitler also claim to be following a destiny and purpose ordained by God, and did he not use religious imagery? Was he also not an exponent of a socially conservative, family values view of women to whom he awarded gold, silver and bronze medals for their childbearing achievements, and did he not persecute and murder people on the basis of their sexuality? So if his followers were to claim that he was "God's prophet" should we also then condemn their critics and opponents - especially their staunchest opponents - as racists? If the difference is a little hard to see then perhaps it is so great that it is blindingly obvious! Nevertheless, in the interests of enlightening those to whom the difference is not obvious, a clear explanation of such apparent contradictions and hypocrisies should be provided for those who can see the light.

It may be unthinkable that we would cease our struggle for social progress. In ceasing to struggle we would be denying reason instead of ignorance, we would be ignoring freedoms that we have suffered for. But, in some ways, we are beginning to turn back the sands of time and so to return to our own dark past.

Should we not rather be turning back the tide of Islam as best we can? Is this not the Western way? Is it not Western values that we should be defending and, indeed, advancing further, like Ms. Liberty? (And that does not necessarily require us to engage in war - war is counter-productive!)

Islam contradicts everything we have struggled for that is the light of human freedom. Human freedom is not a relative value, but a universal one. We are all human, and we all have a stake in our common humanity. But we do not all follow the Koran. Those who do are in many ways victims. But to condone their attitudes and the beliefs enshrined in the Koran is not an answer. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. To treat the followers of the Koran as though they have no choice or responsibility is to regard them, ethically, as children. When society as a whole brands opposition to Islamic values as "racism" and silently defends sexism and homophobia then it is a clear sign that our society has already been severely damaged by Islam, since Islam is being used by those with power who harbour prejudice, to hijack rational debate and to replace it with authoritarianism, censorship and the ignorance which is conceived of these parents.

Islam and the Koran, upon which Islam is based, is the enemy of freedom, and it is the beliefs and attitudes that constitute Islam that we must address, confront and censure, not the opponents of those attitudes. Unless we do so, as a society, we may lose all of the tolerance, equality, freedoms and human rights that those in power claim to be defending, but who, by their words and deeds, do so eloquently deny.

Writer: Elizabeth Jane (c. 2006)
Location: Wayville, S.A.
Date: 1st January 2006

(This article may be copied and reprinted freely without alteration to either the title or the body of this article and with inclusion of acknowledgement of authorship. A link or reference to this page or site would extend a courtesy to the site-owner, as this site is the first place of publication.)