We Are So Selective in our Condemnation and our Condoning of Atrocities

This comment was made on a popular Australian site last night, “nobody wants these dirty, filthy pieces of crap in our country no man, woman or child.”  The person who made the statement wasn’t talking about ISIS terrorists. He was talking about normal, run of the mill Muslims many who have been living in this country for years. Of course the fact that many were born here doesn’t enter the equation.

I posted the comment on social media this morning and received a reply that prompted this thinking. The comment was along the lines of, we agree but what about those who cut people’s heads off and hold them up for all to see.

Any atrocity it doesn’t matter what, should be, in fact MUST be, condemned for what it is; an atrocity. Cutting people’s heads off (be it in war zones or as a result of penalties for crimes committed) is an atrocity; it’s not acceptable by any standards of decency and humanity. And, rightly so these acts are condemned by millions daily.  But why aren’t we equally outraged by other atrocities? Is it because we aren’t aware of them? Is it because we aren’t as concerned? Is it because we measure things by degrees, if ‘he’ commits the act it’s OK but if ‘he’ commits it, it’s wrong. Is it because we excuse our own because they are our own? I wish I knew the answer.

Regardless of the atrocities that are committed we can’t condemn every Muslim for the acts some. We don’t condemn every catholic male because of the acts that have been carried out by priests for an example. We don’t condemn every white male for the appalling acts that paedophiles subject children to; many just babies. Acts by sadistic paedophiles are as bad as or not worse than acts carried out by Muslim terrorists. The difference is we are not subjected to a constant stream of news reports and images of these acts. In fact, we are not permitted to see them. Not that you would want to, however perhaps some should. Perhaps it might help them put things into perspective.

Someone said to me once that the atrocities committed by Buddhist Monk terrorists weren’t as bad as Muslim atrocities because not many people were killed by Buddhists. In the case of Burma, the same person said it was OK because the monks were only killing Muslims. I was stunned. 

I signed a petition today to stop the defiling of dogs in Turkey.  Since prostitution was banned in Turkey, men have resorted to using dogs. I’m sorry if this upsets you. It certainly upset me. What these poor animals are subjected to is horrific.  That said, despite it being an atrocity I suspect most people will ignore the call for help.  But if it said Muslims etc., etc., etc. the petition would have gone viral and social media into meltdown. The same person who made the ‘dirty, filthy’ comment would be shouting “I told you”!!!!

Dozens of children, women and the elderly are dying in Gaza as a result of the onslaught by Israel. But many just brush that off because it’s in retaliation to a few pop rockets fired by Hamas. Now, I’m not condoning Hamas’s actions. They should rightly be condemned but equally I don’t condone what Israel is doing either. It’s hardly a fair fight. But there are people all around the world attacking innocent Muslims, attacking innocent Jews because of what Hamas and the Israeli government and military are doing. By any stretch these actions are sheer madness driven by hate, intolerance and bigotry.

So what is the point of all of this? Let’s focus on the ‘crime’ and the perpetrators of the crime, let’s call out all atrocities that we become aware of and let’s not condemn every one of a certain race, religion, country etc. for the sins of some.

The Death of Standards - Jacqui Lambie

Yesterday, during a radio interview, Senator Jacqui Lambie sunk to an all-time low engaging in what can only be described as a smutty exchange with the radio hosts and a young male caller (young enough to be her son). 

Given Ms Lambie is a senator and given her history of vile comments and her thirst to seek notoriety, I like many others, was outraged by the comments. That prompted me to take to twitter with a series of comments.  Those comments varied from questioning double-standards, the inappropriateness of the comments and the slight against men which was largely condoned by the media. In one of my tweets I included a meme comparing the performances of the two Australian female politicians making headlines yesterday; FM Julie Bishop and Senator Jacqui Lambie. In that meme I referred to Ms Lambie as “Trailer Trash”.  On one hand we have Ms Bishop performing on the world stage, achieving the admiration of global leaders and working on achieving an outcome for the families of those who lost loved ones on flight MH17. Then we have Ms Lambie making smutty comments on radio. No comparison.

Back to my comment about trailer trash the definition of which is lower class white people.  I feel very strongly that Ms Lambie’s behaviour to date and her history fits very well with that description. Yes, it is a harsh comment but vile behaviour warrants harsh comment and Ms Lambie isn’t backwards in making some very harsh and deeming comments about others.

As a result of the meme in question I encountered a tweep using the handle @swbeeton.  Mr Beeton had the temerity to call me vulgar for suggesting Ms Lambie was trailer trash.  Then Mr Beeton attempted to justify it in saying that he didn’t call me vulgar just my meme. It’s much in the same thing as far as I am concerned. Mr Beeton had not made one comment about Ms Lambie and her interview so it appears that;

·       Asking a young man half her age if is he is ‘well hung’ is OK

·       Asking the same young man if is he is diseased is OK

·       Stating that a man doesn’t need to speak if he has money and is well hung is OK

·       Talking about your sons genitals is OK http://www.2gb.com/article/jacqui-lambie-said-what-about-her-son#.U878oWIaySM

Well I stand by what I said and if in the mind of Mr Beeton it makes me vulgar so be it, but I seriously think it says a lot more about him and those who condone the behaviour of this woman than me.  I will persist in my demands for decent standards of behaviour from our elected leaders and in particular women.  I will no longer accept excuses made for Ms Lambie she is 43 years old not a child.  She is an elected (if somewhat rigged) politician and her comments have made news across the world. How appalling is that.  Yet the media and others continue justify her performances with comments such as;

·       She isn’t media savvy

·       She’s learning and inexperienced

·       It’s all a bit of a joke

NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  You don’t need to be media savvy to have high standards; you don’t need to be experienced to act with grace and class and you don’t need to learn how to act in public at 43.  If you do, then you are not suitable to be a leader in this country and if Ms Lambie doesn't have the intelligence to understand that then she has two options;

1. Change her behaviour now and start acting like an elected leader
2. Or resign

 

 

 

The Folly of Labelling Muslims Moderate

I read an interesting article on the folly of branding Islam or Muslims 'moderate'. I'm certainly guilty of that, but no more. Although I don't know how to refer to them to be honest. Perhaps, just everyday Muslims. 

The article resonated because of my loathing of being put into neat boxes and the reason why people do that; largely an attempt to control and bully.  I guess when you think about it, it's the same as putting Muslims into 'boxes'. Carving up the Muslim world into either "good Muslims" or "bad Muslims".  Until "we" have decided they are moderate = good they all remain bad and in mainly cases perceived as extreme. Granted some are but certainly not the vast majority. 

It's certainly true that "we" don't spend the same amount of time searching out "good" and "bad" Christians (like Westbro Baptists, the Lords Resistance Army and those other Christians slaughtering people in Central Africa) or Jews (like the Jewish Defence League and those slaughtering Palestinians) or Buddhists (like those murdering people in Burma and Sri Lanka). We can deny all we like but they certainly exist and when this is pointed out it is explained away by the deniers as they are aberrations. The usual answer is "there aren't many of them compared to Muslims". So in the heads of some it's OK because there's "not too many" and they don't threaten us.  That is not only wrong but unbelievable thinking in justifying wicked deeds. 

The Muslims 'bashers' argue that 15-25 percent of world's Muslims are extremists and that the remaining so called "moderates" are irrelevant.  As was pointed out recently it's usually the MAJORITY of a given group that makes the minority irrelevant, not vice versa. That aside, if the assertion was correct (note no one knows what the number is) and based on the lower end of that range, that’s 240 million of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are extremists. That's the equivalent of every single Muslim in Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia, nearly six times the number of all Muslims on the entire continent of Europe. What utter rubbish. Where are the examples of such supposedly widespread extremism? Sure there a trouble spots and there have been incidents reported outside of the Middle East and Central Africa but even if a mere 1 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims is committed to violence, why is it that we haven’t seen 16 million individual violent attacks? Another minor detail which is glossed over or ignored. 

As was pointed out and to quote, "Proving one’s “moderation” is a trap, anyway. The only way to do it is to meet the criteria set fort by the person making the demand." For the anti-Muslim brigade and others, you do that by supporting Western foreign policies in the Middle East, cheering continued military aid to Israel, and rejecting certain Islamic tenets." Valid points indeed  and I would add agreeing with the views and the opinions of the anti-Muslim warriors.  

So back to the problem of the  “moderate Muslim”. The writer went on to say, "It empowers anti-Muslim activists by implying that the degree to which a Muslim digests their religious faith is indicative of their status as a potential terrorist. Thus, “moderately” subscribing to the teachings of the Quran is OK, but should they cross over into the world of daily prayers, Friday afternoons at the mosque, and, God forbid, Ramadan, they’re suddenly flirting with extremism. That way of thinking is predicated on the unfounded notion that pious religious orthodoxy necessarily entails Muslims behaving badly. It also implies that religious “moderation” involves swallowing up one particular political narrative." Hear, hear. 

"Moderate Muslims” are continually berated for not condemning violence or other abhorrent acts (when in fact many do including religious leaders if people bothered to look). Because most people don't look (preferring to reply on social media and right-wing media reports) those doing the attacking presume that every Muslim who doesn’t is a terrorist lying in wait. Those of us who do point out that Muslims speak up are equally berated. I can not tell you the number of times I've had "it's taqiyya" thrown back at me. I've been called naive and an apologist, I've been accused of being easily fooled and they are the soft accusations.  It appears therefore that only those Muslims who jump to the beck and call of Islam’s so called 'experts' police are the peaceful ones. What an absurd position is that. 

In order to create a more equitable and peaceful place in our world we have to stop pretending we are the authorities on the faith traditions of others and as such entitled to dictate how they must interpret their faith in order for them to be welcomed and accepted. This certainly applies to those who's only point of reference is internet Q & A's, or who are part of the massive get-rich-quick industry riding on the back of islamophobia. Make no mistake this industry is almost as profitable as the climate scam industry it just has fewer players. Putting Muslims (and other faith believers for that matter into 'boxes') to fit our idea of what they should be doing, how they should be acting (even what they should be wearing) is not going to solve anything. If anything, it only serves to create a bigger divide and provides those who do with the opportunity to harass and bully. 

We really have to stop trying to put people into little boxes and stop dictating how others should react and respond.