Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

January 30th, 2007

Tags

, ,

Comments

23 Comments so far.
Add yours.

How to make friends and influence people?

What should a free society do when an organization arises in its midst to call for the overthrowing of the government to replace it with an Islamic superstate? That is a question that Australian officials may be facing shortly:

About 500 Muslims packed a hall in the Sydney suburb of Lakemba to hear speakers of Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) outline the vision of a single Islamic state created by overthrowing “dictators, invaders and governments” in all Muslim countries of the world.

One of the group’s leaders, Indonesian firebrand cleric Ismail Yusanto, called on “all the sons and daughters of Islam, both domestically and externally” to support the establishment of a Muslim state under a single religious leader.

He said the members of such a state would have to be prepared for jihad, or holy war, to defend it.

The first issue I see here is one of idiocy on the hands of Yusanto, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and any Australian Muslim engaged in this. Muslim-Aussie relations haven’t been great since the Sydney Lebanese gang rapes. An extreme minority of Muslims advocating replacing the government with a Caliphate will achieve nothing but resentment and sanctions against all.

The second issue is one of free speech. Government restrictions on free speech is a fundamental right in most free societies, but what is a society to do when faced with an organization that advocates its overthrow? Australia’s policymakers and political leaders are presently split on what to do:

New South Wales state Premier Morris Iamma said the government should follow the lead of other countries and ban Hizb ut-Tahrir because “this is an organization that is basically saying it wants to declare war on Australia, our values and our people.”

The opposition Labor Party spokesman on immigration, Anthony Bourke, said Yusanto’s visa should be withdrawn as he wanted to impose Sharia law in Western countries.

But Attorney General Philip Rudduck told reporters while he regarded the group’s message as “unacceptable in a pluralist society like ours … it doesn’t mean they can be proscribed as a terrorist organization.”

Is the Attorney General correct? What about Albert Langer? What about treason or inciting civil unrest?

Comments to this entry

Jay@Soob
January 30, 2007
1:44 am
Why is it, despite being the darling (and victims) of Sunni fanatical Islamic hatred, we here in the US do not have the same issues? And I mean this in all honesty with zero sarcasm.
Shloky
January 30, 2007
1:51 am
bq. An extreme minority of Muslims advocating replacing the government with a Caliphate will achieve nothing but resentment and sanctions against all.

That's likely the goal. (At least of a few of the leaders hoping to exploit the already fragile cultural fault lines and cause Aussie alienation of more Muslims.)
Jason W
January 30, 2007
1:56 am
Interesting. When the U.S. Government declared war on the KKK, an organization very similar to your typical Islamic group, no one was defending them under the banner of multiculturalism. No one pitied the Klan because they were poor, under-educated and angry. Nor should they have. Islam is the "personality disorder" of all humanity. Even as an atheist I recognize that. But since Islam is not constructed of white heterosexual Christian white males, it is given a pass on all atrocities committed. You may yell at me now.
a517dogg
January 30, 2007
3:32 am
Agree with Shloky. The goal of extremists in the short term is to collapse the political center. Empowering the extremists on the other side is a great way to do this, as it can force people vacillating in the middle to choose whether you are "with us or agin us!" Hizb ut-Tahrir's first obstacle to victory are all the Muslims that aren't willing to kill themselves for *the cause*.
TDL
January 30, 2007
4:26 am
What's the problem here? Until this group of individuals actually declares war on Australia and begins to attack the political institutions, it is nothing but bluster. When force is initiated, then counter it with overwhelming force. Up until the point of force being initiated by an aggressor, undermine the aggressors position by exploiting the weaknesses in their arguments (which I am guessing would not be too hard in this regard.) As for the KKK, they were actually committing violent acts (which ironically began to offend their own membership) and were countered with force.

Regards,
TDL
snow
January 30, 2007
5:39 am
Because of the very real threat that such groups pose, now is not the time to be politically correct. The threat of a one-way ticket home should shut up some of the worst preachers of violence. As for homegrown traitors, watch them like a hawk and if they step over the line from talk to action, slap them in jail.
J.Kende
January 30, 2007
5:49 am
I would think a fine tuned legal standard covering this sort of thing as an explicit example of "incitement to treason" or some such would work. When it comes to free speech, and freedom in general, there are a few limits which serve to make any free system possible. Actions which directly infringe on the rights of others are one clear limit which we all think of quite easily. But actions which "salt the earth"... actions which threaten the very system which guarantees said freedoms in the first place... are even more deserving of clear condemnation as outside the bounds of protection. It's very simple, if you are actively organizing for the destruction of the free system you live in, and other free systems throughout the world, you are an enemy of that freedom and no longer entitled to it's kindness or protection. Off to jail with you right away. Yes, with due process and appeals and the checks to make sure it's not used a tool of tyrannical whim... but let's not be so afraid of becoming tyrants that we are paralyzed in the face of agents of tyranny like the islamists above.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
January 30, 2007
4:47 pm
Jason W: I won't yell. I would only comment that I don't see much defense of this group under the banner of multiculturalism, and that most Western countries have legal remedies for those who seek or conspire to overthrow the sovreign democratic order. It's up to the police and prosecutors to see if there's a case.

It is, however, a mistake to say that defending the (implied) right of people to live their own cultures and traditions can be compared to not defending the KKK. The KKK was singled out for condemnation, not all white people, or all Christians, or all culturally conservative white Christians.

If there had been a response from a hypothetical society-at-large that blamed, say, all white Christians for the actions of the KKK, then a lot of people would have pushed back, I reckon.

Or imagine that all athiests were blamed for every marxist insurgency.
moorethanthis
January 30, 2007
5:48 pm
The British government had an initiative to ban the UK version of Hizb-ut-Tarhir a year or so ago. It never got anywhere, partly on legal grounds and partly because some suggested that banning the group would add to their notoriety and appeal, as well as driving members underground where it would be harder to keep an eye on them. I also agree with TDL on intentions vs. capability. These kind of groups, by their very visbility, are unlikely to be directly planning or carrying out violent attacks.

A cursory study of history shows that almost all ideologies and beliefs have been used to justify violence in the past. In each case, identifying the actions of the violent groups or individuals with their wider cultural background usually places the innocent under scrutiny rather than isolating the extremists. Jason W's characterisation of Islam (not violence in the name of fundamentalist religion, not jihadism, not even political Islam) as "personality disorder"Â? of all humanity says more about him than it does about the issue at hand.
moorethanthis
January 30, 2007
5:51 pm
Oh, and Curzon: "Sydney Lebanese gang rapes"? This is the first I've heard of this. News reports on the riots in Sydney (if that's what you're referring to) don't mention any kind of sexual violence. If you're going to mention it in your post, include a link so we can tell if it's true.
Kurt9
January 30, 2007
6:23 pm
I say they should be left alone, but watched carefully. If they commit any crimes or anti-social acts, then they should be busted for that. In the meantime, I see this as just psychotic ranting and raving.
Jason W
January 30, 2007
7:17 pm
Just psychotic ranting and raving. Did not the Third Reich start with psychotic ranting and raving?
a517dogg
January 30, 2007
7:32 pm
And Godwin's Law is realized....
moorethanthis
January 30, 2007
7:39 pm
Jason W: Are you sure you wouldn't be more at home on LGF or JihadWatch?
Curzon
January 30, 2007
11:49 pm
Moorethanthis: I refer to "this.":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes
Michael
January 30, 2007
11:56 pm
I'm not seeing in the article where it actually says this guy called for rebellion against the state. What am I misreading?

Anyway, I don't know much about Australian law, but if their concept of free speech is the same as ours, my take would be. . . As long as there's no evidence of anything more serious than bluster, their speech is protected. However, the speech of government officials, journalists and other private citizens are also protected by the same laws. If one side is allowed to be incendiary, the other is too. If one side goes further than words, the other will too. My guess is, the Islamists wouldn't win that fight.
snow
January 31, 2007
1:09 am
"If one side is allowed to be incendiary, the other is too. If one side goes further than words, the other will too. My guess is, the Islamists wouldn't win that fight."

Interesting point, Michael.

In a similar vein one could look at Quebec separatists. Once certain extremists in the movement resorted to action, the Federal government clamped down hard (FLQ crisis in 1970). Later, once a separatist government took concrete steps to separate (i.e. a referendum to separate), if I were the Prime Minister, I would have first of all, ignored the results of a referendum and if this did not have the desired effect, then the leaders would have been thrown in jail for treason.
moorethanthis
January 31, 2007
1:42 am
Thank you for the clarification, Curzon. Brings a little more background to my understanding of the 2005 riots in Sydney. Though what I said in my first comment still stands.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
January 31, 2007
2:30 am
This is why I'm a regular reader - great post and great comments! Thank you everyone. Its not a simple issue. Local -v- national issues, personal -v- group; tricky... On the bright side, I agree that the public loonies actually help society rather than those who would overthrow it, as Lord Curzon suggests... Its those who keep silent until they do something awful who we should be most worried about...
Tiu Fu Fong
January 31, 2007
3:26 am
"Anyway, I don't know much about Australian law, but if their concept of free speech is the same as ours"

From memory, Australia only has constitutional protection for freedom of speech in connection with political matters - this is implied from the constitutional requirement of elections and representative government (hence may not apply to all "political" matetrs rather than being an explicit guarantee and was considered in the Theophanous case in the mid 1990s. There's no general right of free speech and are various legal concerns which cut across free speech eg anti-vilification laws, anti-incitement laws, defamation laws. Australia has had a few referenda to incorporate a right to free speech in its Federal constitution since Federation in 1901, but each has been rejected by voters.

Ergo - no protection for the speech, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the speech is in contravention of any laws either.

On the state of free speech for those looking for a "clash of civilisations" narrative in Australia, see also the case of some Christian preachers in Victoria (different state - different state anti-vilification laws) who were (initially) successfully prosecuted for making statements about Islam in the last few years. However, the nature of their statements was different to those under consideration here. See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5362 for background.

From my perspective (formerly in Australia, now an interested viewer from afar), the Australian context for this sort of stuff is one of various interest groups:

1. The urban "elite" non-centre Left - very vocal and with some MSM outlets (eg the Fairfax press, ABC and SBS (public broadcasters)) strong presence in secondary and tertiary education, very antagonistic to the current Liberal (Australia's centre to mid right party) led Federal government, generally sympathetic to minorities who are seen to be victimised (in order of sympathy - refugees, Australia's one prisoner at Guantanamo, Muslims); anti-Iraq war (although pro-East Timor intervention) and generally anti-US; would prefer to watch a BBC comedy to a US comedy. Generally the Left has taken (intentionally or not) a Gramsciian (sp?) approach in Australia.

2. The commentariat Right - also vocal, with some MSM outlets (eg the News Media press, 3 main free to air commercial TV networks), sympathetic to the current Liberal led Federal government; varying levels of antagonism ranging from skepticism to fearmongering to the above mentioned minorities.

3. Bogan Australians - part of the silent majority that doesn't get much a voice other than through tabloid-style "current affairs" programs on commercial TV. Hard to get a real feeling for what their like, as I had limited contact and never discussed politics or other issues with them. My feeling was that there was lingering class and racial-based tensions here, which could flare up for different reasons. For example, a year or so before the "Cronulla riots" were the "Macquarie Field riots", which were a class-based event - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Macquarie_Fields_riots

4. Non-bogan mainstream Australians - by and large their views are a mix of the Left and Right dominated media and their views probably rarely coincide with any one MSM outlet in Australia.


When it comes to reading Australian MSM reports, you should read most stuff in the context of a "culture war" between groups (1) and (2). Many issues are picked up and used as tools to criticise the other group within a conceptual framework based on the culture war, even if the issue is not explicitly linked to criticism of the Government/Right or criticism of the Left in many articles. Hence statements by people in group (1) defending Muslims are also partly being used as a critique of the 'fear-mongering, Bush-loving xenophobic Howard Government'.

The Australian culture war is a bit amorphorous, but largely centres around the following footballs which both sides (ie (1) and (2)) kick around in the MSM and other fields to score goals against each other and the incumbent government:

1. Indigenous Australians
(a) how Australians generally see their history - something to be proud of, or should it be fixated on the treatment of aborigines (this was a big issue a few years ago when historian Keith Windschuttle took on the left-dominated Australian history academia's "black armband" view of history)
(b) how to remedy the current situation - through statist welfare or through pushing personal responsibility

2. The view of Australian history generally (there was a national summit last year on the teaching of history)

3. The Iraq war

4. Muslims' place in Australian society

5. The nature and role of multiculturalism in Australian society

6. The place of patriotism (see recent articles about the Australian flag and "leaving it at home" on Australia Day - http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21095538-2,00.html)

7. David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay

8. The environment and climate change (although group (2) is now starting to come around on this issue, such that it isn't really that much of a lack of consensus)

9. Whether Australians are becoming too materialistic and American-like (on both sides of politics, becoming American-like is generally seen as "not a good thing")

In this context, most MSM coming out of Australia on this event will partially reflect the view of group (1) (to provide a caricature view: "The bogan mainstream is always persecuting Muslims because the Bush-lovign HoWARd Government is stirring up white Australian racism and if we withdrew our troops immediately from Iraq and didn't support Israel so much and were all more kind and loving and let in more refugees and brought David Hicks home, then they would probably happily fit into multicultural Australia and wouldn't be forced into such extremism. Then we could all eat kebabs as well as Thai food and the other cuisines that multiculturalism has given us.") or the view of group (2) (a caricature view: "This is one more step in the clash of civilisations and the kids attending this lecture will either be bombing the Sydney Opera House next week or raping our daughters - or both!").

I have a few Australian friends who are opinion writers and reporters for the Fairfax press (group (1)), and the caricature of their views above is not that far from the truth!

Also relevant is that Australians historically have a statist mentality, much closer to (my understanding of) the UK post-WW2 perspective than the US perspective. Hence a common and knee jerk reaction to most social problems is (1) the government must be at fault (stressed a lot more than individual responsibility) and (2) the way to fix the problem is more government spending and intervention (again, rather than individual or communal responsibility). This type of thinking is common among the Australian Left, but also present in the Right.

Apologies for this tangential comment on my reading of the Australian commentariat/media reporting landscape, but I find the general context of "culture wars" interesting (and not something I see much of here in Hong Kong - we're too busy just trying to get a right to vote). I suspect that other Western nations have similar culture wars - is this true?
Tiu Fu Fong
January 31, 2007
3:37 am
As another example of the culture war:

There is a lot of organised crime in Sydney based around Lebanese gangs, particularly involving drug syndicates, car rebirthing, ATM ram raiding and related crimes (particularly carjacking). The Fairfax press has a well-known practice of reproducing parts of police bulletins in their reports of these crimes, but removing the words "of Middle Eastern appearance" from the offender description (although you can still find the odd occasion of where it slips through). For example, a description reading "The offender was a male of Middle Eastern appearance, between 25 - 30 years of age and approximately 180cm tall" turns into "The offender was a male between 25 - 30 years of age and approximately 180cm tall".

From a culture wars perspective, group (1) views this as avoiding unnecessary racism and incitement against the already victimised Middle Eastern community (largely seen as the same as the Muslim community, although in practice Australia has many people of Christian Middle Eastern origin and also many Muslims of non-Middle Eastern origin) and also in line with the general "race is irrelevant" mantra. Group (2) sees this as typical Leftist idealism resulting in closing their eyes to reality.
bingobangoboy
January 31, 2007
3:56 pm
By the way, when exactly was it that "aussie" came to refer exclusively to WASPs? Or has it always had such a meaning, rather than simply "Australian" as I had always assumed. These days, I rarely see it used except to contrast white Australians with minorities (regardless of their citizenship).
Michael
February 2, 2007
5:06 pm
Another perspective on your second comment, Mr Fong. I was raised in a town that's 30-40% hispanic. One day, a new student entered the classroom with a deep tan and black hair; I thought nothing of it, figured she was a local girl. She then spoke up with an unusual accent and name; it later turned out she was from Turkey. If I had to describe her to someone else before I found that key fact out, they would have had a hard time acting on that information.

This illustrates the difficulty with descriptions like "Middle-Eastern Appearance". Unless a person is familiar enough with a variety of nationalities to spot key differences in facial structure, he or she is pretty well stuck. We don't know if that first witness knows the difference, we don't know if any new witnesses know the difference. It's too easy for biases to creep in. Leaving possible nationality out leaves open the possibility that the culprit was Indian, or Polynesian, or something else.