Today, Michael Smith, shock-jock wannabe was in full rant on 4BC, and whilst he was having a go at Premier Anna Bligh, the main subject of his rant was a “sheik” in Sydney who had been to court about something or other. The details of the case are fairly inocuous, apparently he had sent harrassing letters to the widows of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. He appeared in court today and chained himself to the court building to protest at the killing of Afghan civilians.
Now I am not condoning what the “sheik” did — pretty low act actually — these women were traumatised and suffering and their husbands had given up their lives for their country. I don’t know who he is or what his specific problem is with the war in Afghanistan — don’t know if he has family over there or not, or if his family are victims of the war, so not sure if he was responding out of frustration, or rage or if he is just plain loopy. And I don’t know how many other letters he has sent to Members of Parliament and the Prime Minister protesting at the war.
Regardless of all that he has a right to say what he wants no matter how abhorrent, hateful or stupid his remarks. You can’t fight wars in other countries espousing freedom and democracy then cry wolf when someone at home uses that freedom and democracy. It’s like one of Smith’s callers today who rang and said the guy had the right to say what he wanted and it was no more hateful than the atrocities committed on returned soldiers from Vietnam — although Smith wasn’t having a bar of it!
Part of Smith’s rant was about banning hateful speech and words, even though espousing “I’m all for free speech …” He wanted the word jihad to be banned — how do you actually do that? Smith said that it was such a hateful word that it should not be tolerated in this country. Jihad would have to be the most over-used and least understood word in the Arabic/English language. Like a lot of Arabic words, jihad has many meanings depending on the context it is used in — but Smith wanted it banned altogether.
Of course when the announcer goes off ranting it also brings out the worst in the callers to the station — one nearly ran off the road he was that incensed — not at the “sheik” apparently but at Chris Murphy, the lawyer who had the temerity to defend him! One of Smith’s callers wanted a three strikes you’re out policy introduced — if you’re a new migrant you have three chances to live up to Australian values otherwise you get deported back to your homeland. If you transgress within five years of arriving that means we cancel your visa and on your way buddy! And yet we can’t get 78 people off a boat in Indonesia — who knew it was that easy!
What we do about the low level scum who are born and bred here I don’t know – where do we send them – the Martin Bryant’s, the Ivan Milat’s etc. Two sets of rules it seems — just when everyone is raving about Muslims (they seem to be the targetted group de jour) not integrating into Australian society, some want to actually have them operating under a different set of laws.
Another caller rang Smith and asked about the Muslim leaders and why no-one has denounced this “sheik” and told Australia that all Muslims aren’t like that. Smith then made a “generous” gesture and said whoever rang from the Muslim leadership could have all the time needed to state their case against the “sheik”. Don’t know if he had any takers — and here’s why — we don’t care.
The “sheik” is a nut, and the majority of people — including Muslims — would not have even heard about him if not for Smith and the Daily Telegraph in Sydney — so not even a local Brisbane angle to it, for Smith to make it relevant. And why do Muslim leaders have to constantly denounce the more erratic members of their community — don’t see anyone getting a quote from Archbishop Pell about the latest rape or homicide committed by a Christian person in Sydney. It doesn’t happen for any other religion so why is Islam singled out?
Yasmin Khan is a former member of the Prime Minister’s Muslim Community Reference Group and director of the award-winning Eidfest festival. Her family have been in Australia for more than 100 years.
have a look at this:
http://blogs.watoday.com.au/madashell/2009/11/free_speech_doe.html
local shockjock and the Shame of Perth, Howard Sattler, who goes one step further a makes a link between the Sydney sheik, free speech, and the Fort Hood massacre.
The anti-Islam sentiments have been drummed up for quite some time. I think people like Smith should be blamed for ‘hate speech’.
Australia is no different to other countries and many communities around the world. And we are all tribal and very territorial.
That is why some people worked out laws and constitutions to help the people live together and the social ‘traffic lights’ have been introduced to most countries.
After the Bush’s infamous speech about his ‘crusade’ against the ‘Islamists’ (what a stupid, and viscious expression) I was always worried about the interpretation of the word ‘ democracy’ and ‘free speech’.
I strongly believe that a dictionary of ‘hate speech’ does include words like islamofascist, islamists, ‘fundamentalist’ extremist, kike, fascist, nazi, and some other nasty words that contain that ‘element of hatred’.
Overusing offensive words, like calling a Nazi someone who happens to have a different opinion to ours is also very offensive and it does belong to the category of ‘hate speech’.
We are no different to other people. If an Australian gets killed overseas we are all very upset. It applies to other nations, too.
Just imagine for a second, that i.e. Indonesian army invades Australia just because they have a ‘different life style’. According to people like Smith we should all then suffer in silence and praise our ‘reformers’.
I am particularly sensitive to the issue. As a child I was called ‘a kike’, a ‘Gypsy’, a ‘German germ’ although I am not German, and the ‘one that Germans’ bullets missed by mistake’.
Other children did not want to play with me and avoided me like a leper. I was on my own most of the time.
At the uni I met some students from former Yugoslavia. They were from Sinj and Sarajevo. We became friends. One of my best holidays in my life I spent in the pre-war Bosnia.
I wonder whether my friends survived the war in Bosnia I lost contact. .
At Leeds university in England, I met a very ‘liberated’ girl from Turkey. We became good friends. I still have friends from Turkey.
In Australia, one of my best friends is Amira, and Anglo-Saxon Muslim girl. She is a very good, true-blue Australian lawyer. And it makes me wonder: according to Mr. Smith I, a migrant, can go out with my Australian friends to protest against the costly wars. What about my friend Amira, of British English Muslim parents? Would she get hurt?
It was not my fault that I was born in a German concentration camp. Not my choice. But, at the time I thought, it was my fault that I survived.
It was long time ago. I usually do not dwell on it. But each time another Smith rants about better and worse culture or religion I want to curl up and die.
Now hold on Mustafa,
The Sheik had a crack at free speech, then Smith and his listeners and now you and your mates. Everyone gets a go.
So i think you’re Christian analogy is a bit far fetched. As i understand it this blokes religion is the basis for his objection to the Iraq conflict, ( Something about the dead soldiers murdering his brothers and sisters ) so his beliefs are not incidental to the alleged offence as would be the case with a Christian rapist ( unless we are talking Priest- young boy ?).
As a recent convert to the Christopher Hitchens school of theology i think that you are stupid to define yourself and your associates as a muslim community.
On the one hand you seem happy to to revel in the power and status of being a representative for the ‘ muslim community’ as if religious bond is valid.
Then when a knucklehead pops his head up you want to define him as a nut even though his point of difference is simply being more muslim than the rest of the group.
We as Aussies (of all derivitative nationalities ) should get offended when people push their religion forward as if it defines them as a person or a group then want to protest when the same comparison is thrown back at them in a less favorable light.
Some well made points in the article, except for “the details of the case are fairly inocuous”
I wonder if that opinion is shared by the widows receiving the letters?
Good article Yasmin. Are you sure about this statement? “Regardless of all that he has a right to say what he wants no matter how abhorrent, hateful or stupid his remarks.”
At what point do abhorrent, hateful remarks become personal assaults on the freedom of their targets? It’s not a trivial question. A lot of work has gone into trying to find the right limits of free speech in the racial hatred laws.