AMERICAN FUTURE

UPDATE: The Times reports that Abduljalil Sajid, a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain, offered support for Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali’s views. After meeting Hilali yesterday, Dr Sajid said: “As far as I am concerned he is a great scholar and he has a great knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence.”

__________________________________________________
“the one thing tolerance cannot tolerate is intolerance.”

I’ve already posted twice on Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, and you may rightly ask why I’m doing so for a third time. The answer is the same as the one I gave for my recent posts on the recent multicultural uproar in Britain: something similar could happen here in the future. Because of this possibility, it’s important to expose the thoughts of some of the Muslim clerics in our midst and to be aware of the reactions of our English-speaking breathren.

The latest editorial in The Australian fills us in on the Grand Mufti’s thoughts on subjects other than women:

Sheik Hilali’s vile anti-Semitic rants are well documented and read like the most crude propaganda from Nazi Germany or Tsarist Russia. The cleric has also condoned suicide bombing and celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And in shouting anti-American slogans outside his mosque on Thursday evening, Sheik Hilali has reduced himself to clumsily playing to other extremists, such as the members of the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir – which is banned in many countries – who leafletted outside Lakemba Mosque yesterday. There is no doubt that his words as reported in this newspaper on Thursday are Sheik Hilali’s true feelings, despite his two-decade-long history of offering lame excuses and apologies each time his inflammatory remarks are, as his dwindling numbers of supporters put it, misquoted, mistranslated or taken out of context. Such defences are particularly ironic when they come from Sheik Hilali’s spokesman, Keysar Trad, a man who once did translations for Sydney’s radical Islamic Youth Movement. That now-disbanded organisation advocated “martyrdom operations” and was founded by terror suspect Bilal Khazal.

The Australian sees a “glimmer of hope” from the controversy, and in this they are right:

His words, and the publicity surrounding them, have provided Australia with a bright-line test that separates those who share our common values from those whose views are beyond the pale. The friction between Islam and modernity looks to be the defining feature of the 21st century, and Sheik Hilali’s rants provide the necessary jumping-off point for the conversation that needs to be held about Islam in Australia.

The editorial also criticizes the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, who in claiming that in reporting stories such as this one, the media incites the vilification of Muslims, potentially triggering a terrorist backlash – has it exactly backwards. The Commissioner’s position

is ultimately illustrative of an unhelpful and morally arrogant form of tolerance that seeks to restrict knowledge for some greater good. Yet his view is ultimately most insulting to Muslims, in that it suggests that followers of the Koran are quickly provoked to violence and are unwilling to use the various levers of a democratic society to air and address their grievances.

The Commissioner’s stance reminds us of the apologists for the “Cartoon jihad” and, more recently, the critics of Pope Benedict’s address at Regensberg University.

As to the Sheikh’s anti-Americanism, The Australian reports that he shrugged off widespread condemnations of his women-as-meat remarks—some of which came from large sections of the Muslim community – and said he would resign from his position only when the world is “clean of the White House”, a salvo aimed squarely at President Bush. I wish I could say this surprises me.

In an op-ed, Caroline Overington relates the views of Tanveer Ahmed, a Sydney psychiatrist who is writing a book about Islam in Australia:

He says the great shame is that “many, many” Muslim men, young and old, regard women – particularly Western women – as “less than ideal”.

“The mufti meant exactly what he said, and those views are widely held,” Dr Ahmed said. “I did my own little poll this morning, of a security guard and others who are Muslim, and all said they agreed with the mufti, that he is absolutely right. It comes from households, where young Muslims get the message that white girls are different, and that women in general are a corrupting influence.”

Dr. Ahmed said it was “an opinion I’ve heard throughout my life, that women can tempt you into trouble. Even otherwise sophisticated people will say this, and slur white women. My own theory is, when they are growing up, they are told they are not allowed to participate in much of Western life, they cannot drink, they cannot go to parties. And when they are very young, I think they would love to participate – but then they get older, and suddenly, they find they have developed a contempt for the society in which they live.”

Dr Ahmed rejects the argument that women wear the veil because “it’s their choice”. “You see children aged five wearing it. Are we seriously arguing there is an element of choice, when you sexualise a child in that way?”

. . . but the Grand Mufti of Australia, pictured here, is so upset about the reaction to his depiction of women who do not wear veils as uncovered meat that he spent yesterday in bed, breathing with the aid of oxygen. What a pity.

Pru Goward, the Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner, said that Sheikh al-Hilali should be removed. “I think it’s time he left,” she said, adding that the Sheikh’s remarks were “an incitement to a crime. Young Muslim men who now rape women can now . . . quote this man, their leader, in court.”

And what of the Muslim community? The board of the Lakemba Mosque said early today that it would not censure Sheikh al-Hilali, but that he would not give sermons for three months. Now there’s a punishment for ya!

SOME FACTS ABOUT MUSLIMS IN AUSTRALIA

In the 2001 Census there were 281,578 Muslims in Australia — about 1.5 per cent of the population. Of these, 64 per cent were not born in Australia

Approximately 30,000 were born in Lebanon, many of whom arrived during the 1975-90 Lebanese civil war. Of the others, 24,000 were born in Turkey and about 9,000 each in Afghanistan and Pakistan

There are more than 100 mosques, most in Melbourne and Sydney

Every woman who joins in a protest against the demonization by Westerners of certain Muslim clerics should read an article in The Australian that’s excerpted here:

The nation’s most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don’t wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned “meat” that attracts voracious animals.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

“The uncovered meat is the problem.”

The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

He said women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men.

“It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa).”

Happily, Muslim community leaders were yesterday outraged and offended by Sheik Hilali’s remarks, insisting the cleric was no longer worthy of his title as Australia’s mufti.

From an editorial in The Australian prompted by the veil controversy in Britain:

. . . when women wear headcoverings that hide the face, they are committing a powerful act that has political as well as religious overtones and which sends a message that many people find threatening.

Many justifications have been offered for the veil:

Speaking recently in Sydney, Munira Mirza, a young British Muslim woman, told The Australian that schoolgirls were wearing head coverings as a statement about Western oppression. On the other side of the spectrum, the veil can be worn as a mark of superiority that makes women who dress less modestly by the standards of the veil-wearer seem less moral, or as a way for men to control their wives and other women in their families. At its most dangerous, this thinking can be seen in the Sydney gang-rapes crisis, when Muslim youths felt their victims deserved their fates because of the way they dressed and behaved. It can even be used as a justification for terrorism. The philosophical basis for groups such as al-Qa’ida largely hinges on the idea that non-Muslims must convert or die to hasten the advent of an entire world under Islam, and veils are one way of indicating who is in the elect. Finally, some Muslim women claim that the veil is a liberating force, or that it is an inherent part of their cultural identity. [emphases added]

But no matter the justification, the question remains whether a practice with its roots and justification in medieval Arabia has a place in a postmodern secular society such as Australia. Religious beliefs are by definition sacred, and as much as possible they should be a private matter. But when an individual or a community feels that their personal practices should trump widely held values while also setting themselves apart, the question arises as to whether those people would not be more comfortable in a place where such behaviour is the norm.

The heart of the matter is where tolerance should end and the old adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans”, should kick in:

While tolerance is certainly a positive virtue that should be strived for, it cannot be a cultural suicide pact. A culture that is tolerant of those who are intolerant of its freedoms is ripe for destruction, and bit by bit will see all it values eroded. And radical Islam knows this. Just as an Australian wouldn’t go to Saudi Arabia to wear a bikini on the beach and drink beer in the corner pub, those who see the proper role of women as subservient, anonymous and under cover should not expect a postmodern secular democracy such as Britain or Australia to accommodate these beliefs. Australians, who quite properly want their daughters, sisters, wives and mothers to be able to achieve anything, are right to feel uncomfortable about religiously mandated coverings and the limits they imply. We do not allow practices such as female genital mutilation simply because they are practiced by an immigrant “other”. Disappointingly, those who have traditionally been a positive force for the liberation of women against oppression in other spheres have here largely been silent on the question of Islam’s beliefs concerning half of humanity.

The West is confronting a clash of centuries:

If it is true that the past is another country, then what confronts the West today is not so much a clash of civilisations as a clash of centuries. The jumbo jets that have enabled the mass immigration from Muslim countries to the West are, in effect, time machines that have brought millions of people from a pre-Enlightenment world . . . to secular, liberal and postmodern democracies such as ours.

There’s one government that’s willing to speak the truth to Islamists—and it’s not ours.

The Australian government’s parliamentary secretary for immigration and multicultural affairs, Andrew Robb, yesterday told an audience of 100 imams who address Australia’s mosques that these were tough times requiring great personal resolve. Robb also called on them to shun a victim mentality that branded any criticism as discrimination.

We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith. And because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem. You can’t wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others. Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia.

In an interview, Robb spoke of a proposed stiffening of Australia’s immigration laws and the implementation of a citizenship test.

Australian citizenship is a privilege. In a sense, it gives us our identity. It tells us who we are, where we fit in the world. It is a unifying force in Australia, and if we give it away like confetti, it’s not valued. It’s not valued. And it’s very important that people have the time — four years at least — and the understanding and the English skills that when they make the pledge to become an Australian citizen, that they know what they’re pledging to and they have a keen sense so that they can make the most of the opportunity that Australia offers. If they do well, our new migrants, if they do well, we do well.
. . . having passed the [citizenship] test, we would like to see them sign a commitment to Australia which does detail basically what is in the pledge — the loyalty to Australia, the commitment to democracy, to obeying laws and to defending the liberties that are so important to our Australian way of life. And to some of the values that sit behind that pledge.

Bravo, Australia.

An op-ed in The Australian by Kevin Donnelly on cultural relativism has a familiar ring. The same op-ed, with little other than substituting “American” for “Australian,” would be equally descriptive of what has happened here. Taking into account Britain and Canada—where relativism has reached a more advanced stage, it’s hardly an exaggeration to say that there’s a crisis of the English-speaking countries.

Excerpts:

What does it mean to be Australian? Prime Minister John Howard’s answer is simple: “It means accepting Australian values, it means learning as rapidly as you can the English language.”

He is right . . . Cultural warriors of the Left argue for a kind of mushy multiculturalism: all cultures, you see, are equal, and there is nothing unique about the Australian experience.

[ . . . ] Australia has a long and proud history of democratic freedom based on the Westminster parliamentary system and English common law . . .

One needs only to travel abroad or to look at our music, literature, film and other cultural expressions such as fashion and sport to appreciate what is unique and distinctive about the Australian character. Laconic, open and practical, egalitarian but also competitive and, compared to closed societies, tolerant to a degree that is sometimes counter-productive.

While our society and culture have evolved and become enriched as a result of our immigration policy, especially since World War II, the reality is that Australia, in a region surrounded by instability and violence, is an outpost of Western civilisation characterised by an open and free society.

The cultural Left denies this heritage. Take education. As the curriculum for history shows, students are taught that Australian culture and society are characterised by inequality, social injustice, diversity and difference. Instead of celebrating Australia’s Western tradition, students are told we have always been multicultural and that all cultures are of equal value. Feel guilty about the sins of the past, students are told.

[ . . . ] Australia’s development as a nation and its legal, political institutions and language are Anglo-Celtic in origin and deeply influenced by our Judeo-Christian heritage.Since World War II, thousands from war-torn Europe, the killing fields of Southeast Asia and, more recently, the ethnic violence of Serbia and the destruction in the Middle East have fled to Australia because of the very freedoms and lifestyle we take for granted.

Cultural relativism has been particularly evident in recent years. First, arguing there is nothing inherently worthwhile about particular cultures ignores the fact that some cultural practices – religious fundamentalism represented by jihad, female circumcision, misogynism and sati – are wrong and un-Australian.

Also ignored is that the very values of tolerance, compassion, openness and civility that ensure Australia’s continued peace and stability are culturally specific and based on our Western heritage. Much of mankind’s history is a story of bitter and violent warfare, civil unrest and destruction. Australia, by comparison, has a more settled and peaceful record.

Many argue that the type of grand narrative associated with a celebratory view of Australian society should be excluded as it is “conservative, Eurocentric and nationalistic” and that all cultures are of equal worth.

Marcello Pera, an Italian philosopher, describes the argument in favour of cultural relativism as follows: “The labels have changed but the target is always the same: to proclaim that there are no grounds for our values and no solid proof or argument establishing that any one thing is better or more valid than another.”

I disagree. In the same way Winston Churchill argued that while democracy might be flawed it is better than any alternative, in relation to Western civilisation as transplanted to these shores I’d argue that while it is far from perfect, it is certainly superior to the rest. That’s why so many migrants want to live here. And that is why the Prime Minister is surely right when he says immigrant groups should speak English and embrace Western values if they are to integrate fully into Australian society.

See what I mean?

An editorial (“False Security Is the Biggest Danger”) from The Australian provides an informative summary of events and attitudes. Emphases are mine.

. . . the West is involved in a long and deadly struggle, a war on terror that cannot be wished away. Naysayers in Australia who play down the threat of terrorism against this country’s citizens are ignoring the facts. Al-Qa’ida was already reaching into the region to target Australians as the planes slammed into the World Trade Centre. In December 2001, Singaporean authorities thwarted a plot to destroy a number of the city-state’s Western embassies, including the Australian high commission. Under interrogation in 2004, captured Jemaah Islamiah (JI) chief Hambali said al-Qa’ida had helped in the planning of those attacks. In October 2002, Australia lost its innocence when bombs ripped through two bars on the club strip in Bali’s Kuta that were favourites of Aussie tourists. Of the 202 who died, 88 were Australians. Once the initial shock and mourning had passed, Australia’s intellectual Left weighed in to blame the JI assault on Canberra’s support for the US war on terror, even though it was before Australia joined the coalition of the willing to liberate Iraq. Others seized on the divide between rich and poor in Southeast Asia and even Israel’s conflict with Palestinians as justification for the attack. A tape of bin Laden gloating over the Bali massacre the next month put the lie to this speculation. He confirmed Australia was a specific terror target, not only for joining the US-led campaign in Afghanistan, but also for our “despicable effort to separate East Timor”.

The car bombing of Jakarta’s Marriott Hotel in May 2004, leaving 16 dead, was a warning JI was hungry for victims. The terror group struck again in September, bombing the Australian embassy in Jakarta. Jack Roche’s trial the same year painted a frightening picture. The first person convicted under Australia’s anti-terror laws, Roche’s grooming by JI terrorists began in the mid-1990s. In April 2000, he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and undertook explosives training. He was asked and funded to establish an al-Qa’ida cell in Australia, and began plotting an attack on the Israeli embassy in Canberra. In The Philippines, JI ally Daud Santos was arrested in Manila early last year over a plot to blow up the Australian embassy. As the doubters stepped up their campaign in Australia against tougher anti-terror laws, terrorists were planning more attacks. JI operatives struck again in October last year in a series of suicide bombings in Bali’s Jimbaran and Kuta, cutting down innocent Australian holidaymakers in a second pointless, murderous attack. Arrests of nine men in Melbourne and eight in Sydney in the aftermath, including the radical Algerian cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika, drew arrant nonsense from the Left about racism and the risk of alienating moderate Muslims.

In February this year, 32-year-old Australian Jihad Jack Thomas became the first person to be convicted under new terrorist funding laws. A Victorian Supreme Court jury found him guilty of accepting funds from al-Qa’ida. He was also guilty of possessing a falsified passport, altered to conceal the amount of time he had spent in Afghanistan training with al-Qa’ida. The conviction was quashed last month because of the circumstances and timing of the Australian Federal Police interview with him in Pakistan. The Government has sought and won a control order on Mr Thomas to restrict his movements and communications. Those who claim this breaches his civil liberties reflect the same blind refusal to digest the truth about the terror threat facing Australians that has been playing out since 9/11.

Some continue to doubt the war on terror, preferring instead to believe the US has brought the conflict on itself. But those who, sometimes secretly, cheer al-Qa’ida from the sidelines misunderstand the threat. It is disturbing that so many people are still prepared to believe conspiracy theories that the US or Israel were somehow behind the September 11 attacks, despite bin Laden having claimed responsibility. To commemorate the fifth anniversary of the attack, the Arabic al-Jazeera television network this week aired a video showing bin Laden reportedly meeting some of the September 11 masterminds. Two of the 9/11 attackers, Wael al-Shihri and Hamza al-Ghamdi, were shown presenting their taped “wills”. If any were needed, the video provides further proof that the 2001 attacks were part of a calculated and long-term campaign against the West.

On the anniversary of September 11, there is cause to reflect on the scope of the challenge at hand. There remains a need for vigilance and understanding that the fight is real and that a false sense of security can breed deadly consequences.

The bolded portions sound disgustingly familiar. The Northern Hemisphere doesn’t have a monopoly on idiocy.

Finally, a Western government—Australia’s—has acted to eliminate a deadly poison from the body politic.

The Australian reports that Attorney-General Ruddock called for tougher laws to ban extremist books after the Australian government’s Classification Review Board banned two radical Islamic books. These were the first books to banned in Australia in decades.

The two extremist Islamic texts about jihad were discovered in a Lakemba bookshop last year in the wake of the London bombings. The first, Defence of the Muslim Lands “promotes and incites matters of crime, specifically terrorism acts, including the plan, action and execution of martyrdom operations.” The second, Join the Caravan, was banned because “it has the objective purpose of promoting and inciting acts of terrorism against ‘disbelievers.’”

Sure enough, some Muslims objected. Islamic Friendship Association of Australia founder Keysar Trad investigated the books on behalf of the Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, and said the decisions were “McCarthyism all over again”. He said Muslims could ask for the Salman Rushdie book Satanic Verses to be banned on the same grounds. Waleed Ali, a spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria, said that “We understand that the literature is demonstrably unsavoury, but that’s different from saying that it necessarily causes a threat.”

The AP noted that both books were written by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, whom the Classification Review Board described in its rulings as the “godfather of jihad” and a known “mentor to Osama bin Laden.”

No, I’m not talking about UN Security Council sanctions. I’m talking about unilateral sanctions undertaken by South Korea, Japan, and Australia—but not the U.S.

From the AP via CNN:

A South Korean official said:

We will hold off [on plans to ship 100,000 tons of fertilizer]. In addition, we will hold off on providing 500,000 tons of rice. This will continue until there is an exit out of the missile problem.

Japan’s minister of agriculture said his country won’t provide food, either:

I feel sorry for the people who are starving, but we have absolutely no plans to provide food aid to North Korea.

Australia, which has diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, said it plans to significantly curtail its ties.

The Australian reports that Australia is prepared to offer North Korea a cheap, secure energy deal, probably coal shipments, if the North Korea returns to peace talks, as part of an attempt to solve the missile crisis.

Worth noting:

The Guardian reports that the South Korean defence minister, Yoon Kwang-ung, said his country was developing cruise missile technology. According to a South Korea-US missile guideline signed in 2001, South Korea can only develop missiles with a range of up to 200 miles and a maximum payload of 500kg. Cruise missiles, however, are not subject to the range restriction. Seoul has tested cruise missiles about a dozen times in the past three years, a military official said.

____________________
In viewing Japan’s reaction to North Korea’s missile tests (and North Korea’s response to Japan’s reaction), it’s essential to keep this history in mind:

During the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), Japanese forces moved into the Korean peninsula, despite Korean declarations of neutrality. The signing of the Japan-Korea Protection Treaty in 1905 gave Japan virtual control over Korea, and in 1910 a Korean royal proclamation announced the annexation by Japan. During its occupation, Japan built up Korea’s infrastructure, especially the street and railroad systems. However, the Japanese ruled with an iron fist and attempted to root out all elements of Korean culture from society. People were forced to adopt Japanese names, convert to the Shinto (native Japanese) religion, and were forbidden to use Korean language in schools and business. The Independence Movement on March 1, 1919, was brutally repressed, resulting in the killing of thousands, the maiming and imprisoning of tens of thousands, and destroying of hundreds of churches, temples, schools, and private homes. During World War II, Japan siphoned off more and more of Korea’s resources, including its people, to feed its Imperial war machine. Many of the forced laborers were never repatriated to Korea.

Last year, Japan approved a set of new history textbooks whose version of past events sparked this complaint from the South Korean Embassy in Japan:

The Republic of Korea expresses regret over the fact that some of the 2006 Japanese middle school text books… still contain content that justifies and glorifies wrongs committed in the past.

There’s still no love lost between Japan and both of the Koreas.

Thanks to the Bookworm Room for finding this article in Australia’s Herald Sun:

POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits. [ . . . ] The instructions come in a religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that also recommends special treatment for suspects of Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background.

[ . . . ] Police are told: “In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims.” They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against “fragmenting the family unit”.

Islamic Women’s Welfare Council head Joumanah El Matrah called the guidelines appalling and dangerous. “The implication is one needs to be more tolerant of violence against Muslim women but they should be entitled to the same protection,” Ms El Matrah said.

Final score: Multiculturalism 1, Individual Rights 0.

Prime Minister Howard, from the NRO Corner:

. . . on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it’s given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq. And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq. Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn’t have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan? When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq—a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations—when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don’t know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can’t put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I’ve cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

Put that in your pipes and smoke it, apologists.

From an op-ed in Australia’s The Age:

Of about 100 mosques in Australia, a handful appear to have fallen prey to the preaching of hatred by hardline Islamists . . . These extremists have been financed by Sunni hardliners with deep pockets. Wealthy Saudis have churned more than $US100 billion ($A133 billion) over the past 20 years into worldwide proselytising.

[...] The compact under multiculturalism is that each community within a society must have the freedom to sustain its own identity, traditions and culture. But there is a quid pro quo and that involves universal acceptance of a broad system of shared values. Hence, multiculturalism, in this country and elsewhere, is at a moment of truth. The drift from melting-pot altruism into salad-bowl separatism has morphed into something more sinister: the existence within Western cultures of a hostile religious sect that renounces absolutely the principles on which our societies are structured.

The column ends with a quote from Jean Francois Revel:

Clearly, a civilisation that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.

Amen.

Phillip Adams should see Bill Roggio’s and Marvin Hutchens presentation at Winds of Change. This is what he has to say in The Australian:

. . . our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister try to blur the linkages with Iraq. They stress that Islamists are attacking our values, our way of life, our love of freedom in these murderous stunts.

And everyone, most of all Howard and Alexander Downer, knows this is twaddle. The selection of targets is largely based on involvement in, and enthusiasm for, Bush’s new world order. The PM tells the truth when he says he cannot promise that our cities are safe from terrorism. He tells the truth when he confirms that an attack on Australia within Australia is not only possible but probable. But he lies when he denies that it is his foreign policies that have made our lives more dangerous.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with him on this:

The great divide between those who supported the invasion of Iraq and those of us who opposed it is as wide as ever. We seem to live in different universes, with both sides using the London bombings to support their positions.

From Paul Kelly in The Australian:

This bombing is a tragedy for London and a warning for Australia. The two great English democracies with whom we share a cultural affinity and security ties have been attacked, the US in 2001 and Britain this week. And Australia has been legitimised as a target by our roles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The London bombing is a reminder of the consensus reached by our intelligence agencies as outlined by former ASIO chief Dennis Richardson. These points are, first, that Australia has been “part of al-Qa’ida’s strategic vision for some years” predating the September 2001 attack on the US and our role in Afghanistan and Iraq; witness the earlier attempted attack on our High Commission in Singapore. Second, we “have become a target in our own right” – witness our numerous mentions by al-Qa’ida leaders and on their websites. Third, that since 2000 “there has been at least one aborted, disrupted or actual terrorist attack against us each year”. Witness Bali in 2002 and the Jakarta embassy attack last year. Don’t ask whether Australia is a target because of who we are or what we do. We are a target on both counts. Like Britain and the US, we are a target because we belong to the Zionist-Christian conspiracy but we are also a target because of our policies, notably our intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.

From an editorial in the same newspaper:

But we can beat these terrorists. We defeat them by holding firm in our faith in democratic government, in the rights of all individuals under the rule of law and in the equality of all men and women to live their lives as they choose.

I’m sorry: that’s not enough. They need to be eliminated.

From Paul Kelly in The Australian:

This bombing is a tragedy for London and a warning for Australia. The two great English democracies with whom we share a cultural affinity and security ties have been attacked, the US in 2001 and Britain this week. And Australia has been legitimised as a target by our roles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The London bombing is a reminder of the consensus reached by our intelligence agencies as outlined by former ASIO chief Dennis Richardson. These points are, first, that Australia has been “part of al-Qa’ida’s strategic vision for some years” predating the September 2001 attack on the US and our role in Afghanistan and Iraq; witness the earlier attempted attack on our High Commission in Singapore. Second, we “have become a target in our own right” – witness our numerous mentions by al-Qa’ida leaders and on their websites. Third, that since 2000 “there has been at least one aborted, disrupted or actual terrorist attack against us each year”. Witness Bali in 2002 and the Jakarta embassy attack last year.

Don’t ask whether Australia is a target because of who we are or what we do. We are a target on both counts. Like Britain and the US, we are a target because we belong to the Zionist-Christian conspiracy but we are also a target because of our policies, notably our intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.

From an editorial in the same newspaper:

But we can beat these terrorists. We defeat them by holding firm in our faith in democratic government, in the rights of all individuals under the rule of law and in the equality of all men and women to live their lives as they choose.

I’m sorry: that’s not enough. They need to be eliminated.

Arthur Chrenkoff’s blog is one of my primary sources in the blogosphere. He’s really good at synthesizing information, as this post, which I republish in its entirity, shows:

Geo-strategy watch: focus on East Asia

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The action:

“The European Union yesterday refused a Franco-German request to lift its arms embargo on China amid fierce disagreements over the country’s human rights record and military ambitions…

“Sanctions were imposed in 1989 after the Tiananmen Square massacre. France has led the drive to lift them, deeming it misguided to treat an emerging economic superpower – and the host of the next Olympic Games – as a pariah state. “Behind the French move is a subtle attempt to draw China into a strategic alliance to counter American power.”

Reaction:

Item 1:

“Japan took another step away from its post-World War II pacifism yesterday by ending its decades-old ban on military exports and telling defence planners to regard China and North Korea as threats.

“Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s Cabinet agreed to allow military sales – only to the US and for missile defence – a day after it extended Japan’s ground-breaking deployment to Iraq for another year.”

Item 2:

“Japanese troops could soon be training with Diggers [Australian soldiers] on Australian soil for the first time as part of a move to forge closer military ties…

“Although only in the early stages, the contentious military training talks, which have not reached ministerial level, are certain to divide war veterans and others in the community. “It could also pose problems for Canberra’s burgeoning relationship with China – including the pursuit of a free trade deal – given ongoing tensions between Beijing and Tokyo… “Allowing Japanese troops to train in Australia would be viewed dimly by China, which is likely to become Australia’s biggest trading partner over the next decade.”

As the story points out, antagonizing China is not the only potential downside – Australia’s veterans community is strongly anti-Japanese, a testament to the fierce and savage nature of fighting in the Pacific theater, as well as abominable treatment of Allied POWs by their Japanese captors. This is one World War Two legacy which has neither seen a closure nor benefited from reconciliation.

Back to the broader point – watch as France keeps courting China, and Russia keeps courting India, both moves clearly a part of anti-American coalition building. The matters are complicated, of course, by the fact that India and China, in turn, are traditional enemies. I guess nothing in international life was meant to be easy.