The document, written last month by the commander of U.S forces in western Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Kelly, describes “unbelievable overcrowding, total lack of anything approaching even minimal levels of hygiene for human beings, no food, little water, no ventilation… There is zero support from the (Iraqi) government for any of the jails in Anbar. No funds, food or medical support has been provided from any ministry.” and says “We need to go to general quarters on this issue right now… To state that the current system is broken would erroneously imply that there is a system in place to be broken.”

The jail is situated next to the U.S. Joint Communications Center in downtown Fallujah. It was built in 2005 by U.S. contractors to house 110 prisoners, but now reportedly holds around 900, mostly awaiting trial or transfer to Baghdad.

“It doesn’t recognise Israel”, says Toby. A perplexed Bartlet points out that it was drawn in 1709. “Israel wouldn’t happen for another 250 years,” he adds.

Toby agrees, but still says no to the map. “Some people are going to find it offensive.”

Bartlet asks why. “It doesn’t recognise Israel,” Toby repeats.

It’s an interesting scene. The dialogue is brief, but it says so much.

And it’s sort of strange that I first saw this in the same week our new PM Kevin Rudd made the fortuitous decision to mark and honour Israel’s 60-year occupation of Palestine — sorry, “statehood”. But this weekend, The Sydney Morning Herald’s Alan Ramsey considered the other side of the story.

You can imagine my further disappointment when the most controversial things Tariq Ramadan, the source of the controversy, said, would be more likely to offend some Muslim sensibilities than the non-Muslims in attendance. In fact, Ramadan, who is an incredibly engaging and charismatic speaker, presented his very sensible points softly but with clear conviction. There was absolutely nothing that might require monitoring by authorities.

Admittedly, the Brisbane conference on the “challenges and opportunities” of Islam in Australia was my first true introduction to Ramadan and his thesis. I understood the following: he is a “reformist”; he believes Muslims need to try harder to reconcile their beliefs with those surrounding them in their particular Western nation; he is dubbed Islam’s Martin Luther; he lacks mainstream appeal; he is more successful in Europe than Australia and the US.

Most of this was confirmed in his keynote speech. Ramadan covered a lot of material, but not before addressing the news reports circulating prior to his arrival. He was disappointed that the Australian media was adopting such an exaggerated fear-mongering stance: focusing on his grandfather, Hassan al Banna (founder of Egypt’s the Muslim Brotherhood) and the revocation of his US visa a couple of years ago, which prevented him from taking up a post at the University of Notre Dame. He called these reports “unacceptable” and noted that there were several factual mistakes in the articles he read (four in one, eleven in another); apparently journalists had visited his website and attributed things to him that Tariq Ali had said (fair enough: having the same first name could confuse even the most intelligent of our species).

Ramadan’s discussion centred on citizenship and a sense of belonging. He acknowledged the practical challenges facing pluralistic societies, and also for Muslims in terms of their faith. He suggests that we are lacking discourse on spirituality and universal ethics (politics, etc). He wants to see more Muslims taking up academic positions, writing literature, learning and teaching Islam within their Western nations and, overall, participating socially and politically. He advocates commonality — in other words, send your children to state schools and provide strong supplementary guidance at home. I thoroughly enjoyed his talk and struggled to remember the last time I was so interested and, at times, moved, by what a Muslim scholar had to impart.

Ramadan does not hold back in his critical assessment of the issues plaguing Muslims today. While I took many notes, rather than write them all up (I was told the audio of Ramadan’s speech would eventually be available online), I’ll set out his closing remarks, which reflect his essential arguments. Ramadan concluded with the following:

- Shed the ‘victim mentality’; psychological isolation is what caused the UK bombers to undertake their crimes.
- Rid yourself of the minority mindset; there is no minority citizenship, the law applies equally to all and Muslims are not second-class citizens.
- Women have to be more involved practically in society.
- Social and economic problems should not be “Islamicised” and “culturalised”. Deal with these problems in their appropriate social and political realms. While there are overlapping realities (ghettos), many of these issues are simply not Islamic or cultural.
- Move from integration to contribution.
- Move from contribution to culture.
- Do not focus on the ones who are destroying, focus on the ones who are building.

All of this, Ramadan argues, will be the “silent revolution” of Muslims in the West.

A SENIOR counter-terrorism officer with the Australian Federal Police has testified that police were directed to charge “as many suspects as possible” with terrorism offences in order to test the new anti-terrorism laws introduced in 2003.

The admission was made by federal agent Kemuel Lam Paktsun, the senior case officer on the Operation Newport investigation that led to the arrest of Sydney medical student Izhar Ul-Haque, whose trial was sensationally dismissed in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday.

…

“At the time we were directed, we were informed, to lay as many charges under the new terrorist legislation against as many suspects as possible because we wanted to use the new legislation,” Mr Lam Paktsun testified.

“So regardless of the assistance that Mr Ul-Haque could give, he was going to be prosecuted, charged, because we wanted to test the legislation and lay new charges, in our eagerness to use the legislation.”

The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

The proposed Islamic school for Camden has outraged thousands of residents, some of whom say it would bring violence to the suburb and turn it into a “dirty looking town like Lakemba”.

And they are going to extraordinary lengths to prevent their little town turning into Lakemba. The Sun Herald reports today that:

Property industry sources and concerned residents said agents at Wednesday night’s meeting debated the issue of selling homes to Muslim families wanting to relocate to the area.

Some residents are even attempting to enlist the help of God:

A large wooden crucifix had been erected at the school’s proposed site, accompanied by a Bible passage that reads: “David and Goliath. The battle is won. This is the King of Kings Land. Prayer is essential in this ongoing warfare. (Eph 6:18).”

Reading some of the comments by Camden residents, one might come to the conclusion that it is some sort of idyllic country town facing a horde of Muslims bringing violence and other crimes. It’s more like the Siege of the Vanilla Slice than the Siege of Vienna but residents seem to be taking it very seriously indeed.

One resident complains of what he calls “premature Muslimism”, another of “certain ethnic denominations and the violence they bring”.

Still another claims she “won’t be walking the streets after 7pm”.

And, yes, she has bought deadlocks for her house. Phew

Well, we hate to deal in ugly stereotypes — we’ll leave that to some of the residents of Camden — but it seems that the good folk of Camden have some social problems of their own.

We compared crime statistics for lovely, rural Camden with the City of Canterbury (home to the “dirty looking town of Lakemba” and high numbers of Muslims) and we’re sorry to report that Camden beats Canterbury when it comes to particular offences. Notably breaching apprehended violence orders (usually meant to stop wife beating), domestic violence, theft, sexual assault, indecent assault, dealing in amphetamines and ecstasy, trespass, break and enter, shoplifting, harassment, blackmail and extortion, threatening behaviour, private nuisance, weapons offences, offensive language, offensive conduct, alcohol offences, dangerous driving, driving with unroadworthy cars, arson and, of course, offences related to the production and/or consumption of illegal pornography.

Here’s the complete comparison [pdf] based on statistics from the NSW government.

Now, let’s face it, the sorts of Muslims who are likely to move their families to the country in order for their children to attend an Islamic school are, it must be said, unlikely to be the same sort of people who would be engaging in sexual assault, ecstasy dealing, arson and the production of pornography. So when Hayley, a Camden Advertiser reader, says that, “this Islamic school will change the town forever”, she’s probably right.

Click here to view the embedded video.

But as usual in these situations, the responses are quite hysterical:

A Camden Advertiser reader who identified only as Hayley said she felt sick. “The thought of our beautiful Camden accommodating to this religion is a disgrace … This Islamic school will change the town forever,” she said.

Oh, honey. This isn’t 1955.

A resident of 14 years, Gary Wright, said if Camden Council wished to bring crime and corruption to Camden and make it a “dirty looking town like Lakemba I supose (sic) they will go ahead anyhow”.

That’s … pretty deep.

But my favourite:

Some residents have also been circulating a text message urging people to voice their opposition to council.

“The council requires 600 written dated n signed letters objecting2the proposal of the muslim school in camden. DONT MISS the oppoutunity2have your say before its2late,” the message says.

It gives a postal address for the mayor and tells recipients to forward the message to everyone they know.

Fingers crossed they spelled the mayor’s address correctly.

The Australian reports today:

ONE of Australia’s leading researchers in artificial intelligence, who developed a computer system that can read sign language, is set to join internet giant Google in the US.

Such news wouldn’t normally warrant a mention here on Austrolabe except the researcher is Dr Waleed Kadous, occasional contributor to this site and co-convener of the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network (AMCRAN).

In this case, Google’s gain is our loss: they are gaining an outstanding researcher, and the Australian Muslim community is losing one of its most tireless and selfless campaigners and activists.

As I have written previously, it’s my view that the political ideology that best guarantees us those freedoms is libertarianism. It is therefore of particular interest that there is a libertarian party, the Liberty and Democracy Party, running in the coming election — and they have a real chance.

So, to find out how this party views issues of concern to the Muslim community, I put a few questions to John Humphreys, the party’s vice-president and senate candidate for Queensland. We report, you decide; but I know who I’ll be voting for on election day.

What is the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) all about?

The Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP) is the only political party in Australia that doesn’t want to tell you how to live your life. Every other political party thinks they know how you should behave – which hobbies you should have; how you should raise your children; how you should spend your money; and what sort of community you should join. The LDP is the only party that says “it’s your choice, not the governments”.

We understand that people sometimes make the wrong decisions in life. But if we really are a free people, then we must be free to live our own lives, even if that means occasionally making our own mistakes.

The key to the success of a free pluralistic society is tolerance. The LDP does not promote any particular lifestyle choice. Further, it is not necessary for Australians to agree with the decisions of their neighbours. All that is required is tolerance. The LDP is the party for non-interference and tolerance of diversity.

In recent years, the government has taken steps to ban books and other material that it believes is ‘extremist’ or inciting hatred. Assuming the literature doesn’t call for specific acts of violence, what is the LDP’s position on this?

The LDP believes in absolute freedom of speech, even when that speech might be controversial or offensive.

So long as there are no direct and specific threats of violence, people should be free to promote any ideas, even if those ideas are ‘extreme’, absurd or unpopular. The truth has nothing to fear from an open debate.

There have been repeated calls in Australia and abroad for the government to impose limitations on what Muslim women can wear in public. Does the LDP support the freedom of women to wear whatever they please?

The LDP fundamentally believe that each person owns their own life and should be free to make their own decisions without undue government interference. So long as people interact voluntarily and peacefully, they should be free to make their own lifestyle choices and wear what they choose.

The LDP would certainly defend the rights of Muslim women to wear what they want.

What is the LDP’s position on private schools and particularly religious schools?

The LDP supports a schools policy of more parental choice and less bureaucratic control. Our policy calls for a “voucher” system of funding the parents (who then use that money on a school of their choice) instead of giving money directly to the schools.

We believe that this would lead to more competition between schools and a greater diversity of schooling options, including a range of religious schools and non-religious schools.

The LDP supports the freedom of these schools to control their own staff, rules and agenda. So long as they abide by minimum standards necessary to prepare their students for university, schools should be free to cater to the specific demands of their community.

When people talk about ‘multiculturalism’ it can mean different things. On the one hand, it means that people are free to practice whatever culture they choose (providing it does not harm others or limit heir freedoms) without interference from the state. On the other hand, there is a form of multiculturalism as government policy where the government takes an active role in funding and controlling or influencing the expression of different cultures.

Does the LDP support the freedom of people to practise their culture and religion as they wish free from government involvement? What is the LDP’s view on the state establishing and funding religious organisations, choosing leaders for the Muslim community, and generally interfering in the cultural and religious affairs of a minority?

The LDP absolutely supports the first version of multiculturalism described above – the freedom to choose your own lifestyle free from government interference.

We do not support the government’s efforts to control and manage multiculturalism. Culture is fluid and dynamic and should not be controlled by politicians and bureaucrats. We do not support government programs that try to change, preserve or adjust people’s culture. Nor should the government interfere in the appointment of community leaders or the religious affairs of any group – whether they are a majority or a minority.

Culture is a very personal and private decision and the government should not be involved.

What’s the LDP’s view on the war in Iraq?

The federal LDP did not exist when the Iraq war was being debated. But personally I have always been a fierce critic of the war and in 2004 I published an award-winning essay on the need for us not to over-react to terrorism.

In that essay I wrote: “It is hard for any rational analysis of the war [in Iraq] to reveal a net benefit”. My argument was that the greatest threat to our freedom was irrational fear and political over-reaction. I also argued against the ASIO Act which reduces the civil liberties of all Australians.

What is the LDP’s immigration policy?

The LDP recognises the significant benefit gained from immigrants and we are a pro-immigration party. Indeed, we are the only minor party that supports high levels of non-discriminatory immigration. We condemn the calls by Pauline Hanson and the Christian Demoratic Party for a halt to African and/or Muslim immigration and the LDP would like to make it clear that we appreciate the contributions of all immigrants — from Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

The LDP would support the introduction of “free immigration agreements” with approved countries so assist in the easier flow of people. We already have such a policy with New Zealand and there is no reason why it couldn’t work with Singapore, the Netherlands or Dubai.

While it is necessary to detain unauthorised arrivals for security and health checks, once those checks are complete then refugees should be free to be released on bail, to live in the community while they are awaiting the final decision of the courts. The LDP believes that Australia should be responsive to the calls for greater refugee intake in times of crisis.

Consistent with our other policies, our immigration policy is one that celebrates diversity, calls for tolerance and reduces the role of government.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Another prescient example of this is Danny Nalliah, pastor of the fringe church “Catch the Fire Ministries“. Nalliah has previously been alleged to have expressed the desire for God to burn down mosques. For this and other comments Nalliah was taken to VCAT by the Islamic Council of Victoria for inciting religious hatred. The ICV action was a failure both legally and in the wider court of public opinion. It allowed Nalliah to portray himself as the victim of a secretive religion which was furiously trying to avoid scrutiny as it infiltrated the nation. Money, sympathy and support flooded into Catch the Fire Ministries and Nalliah became a celebrity in the Evangelical community. The federal treasurer Peter Costello appeared on stage with Nalliah and embraced him, as did the then deputy Prime Minister John Anderson.

The case was finally settled earlier this year, with a points victory to Nalliah. This has allowed him the confidence to discover his voice once more and to bless us with the profound insights that can come to those whom God speaks to directly.

This is the best bit:

The Lord told me to spend some personal time with Prime Minister John Howard and to prophetically prepare Federal Treasurer Peter Costello as the future Prime Minister of Australia. (I don’t know the exact timing, but I was obedient to the voice of God).

Nalliah goes to to declare his prophethood:

I know this prophetic declaration is very controversial, but at this critical crossroad in our nation’s destiny, it’s not time to tickle the ears of man, but to please the Father in Heaven, by boldly proclaiming His Authoritative Word of Righteousness, Justice, and Truth to the Church and Nation!

The mainstream readership of the News limited papers took a less charitable view of Nalliah’s intervention.

Still blissfully unaware of the wider community’s perception of him, Nalliah has met with the League of Rights, a fringe group who deny the Holocaust and peddle the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is not the first time Nalliah has shared a platform with the league.

This all begs the question, why on earth would it be in our interests to shut this man up? Note that during the 5 years of the legal battle Nalliah was treated sympathetically by the mainstream press. This has changed immediately once the case was concluded.

The glare of the media spotlight has been especially unflattering to Nalliah and his views. It has been a much more effective tool against him than the legal process could ever have been.

Mosman is not known for a substantial Muslim population, so I could understand the surprise some interviewees registered; the disgust was a little harder to stomach. But it was there, and it certainly demonstrated that many were, in no uncertain terms, passionately opposed to a mosque in the area, particularly because, well, it would attract Muslims.

It’s this skit that came to mind when I read an excellent piece in The Economist (‘Constructing Conflict’, 30 August 2007) about the politics of mosque-building in non-Muslim majority countries. You can read the whole article here. It’s worthwhile reading the entire piece, but this short paragraph really caught my attention:

Reza Aslan, a Californian writer on Islam, says that to his American eyes the intensity of openly “Islamophobic” opposition to mosques in parts of Europe, especially the south, is a shock. “It’s as though some Europeans are confused about their identity and are now trying to construct one in opposition to Islam.”

Is that the case for Europe? Let’s hope not.