Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (7)
Now that Cherif Kouachi and big brother Said have been sent to collect their allocation of virgins, we must turn our attention to more serious matters than the voyeuristic absorption in the loss of a handful of meddlesome scribblers. The main issue that will be consuming the French body politic, and by illustration and example, concerning us equally in Australia, is what can be done to repair the deep hurt to the feelings of those like the Charlie Hebdo killers who have been disfranchised and alienated by our racist, uncaring, intolerant and alienating society.
There were some suggestions today from Dr Clarke Jones, a visiting fellow in Crime, Policing, Security and Justice at the Australian National University, Canberra:
“It needs to be done on a case by case basis, and then look at providing….it could be providing opportunities in relation to education, it could be sporting programmes, but looking at developing a new role model, a new vision in life for them, a new pathway in life and giving them a sense of hope, making them feel part of society, making them understand – y’know – why they’ve got this level of disagreement with the government and……society as a whole.”
OK, I cheated. I left out a few key words. They would have made it clear that Jones, interviewed on the ABC’s AM radio programme on Friday morning, was talking about Muslims in Australia, not in France.
But in the context of this week’s events, it was fair of me to quote his words to demonstrate the risk that soppy, muddle-headed apologists will attempt to set the agenda in coming discussions on the menace of Muslim radicalism. Jones, it will be remembered, described Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s ‘Team Australia’ as counter-productive. It was confusing, he opined, and reinforced the sense of marginalisation.
Marginalised!? Who has been more marginalised than the cartoonists and writers of Charlie Hebdo? Than the late Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson in that Lindt coffee shop?
Is this what we can expect from our academics, our so-called intellectuals, and from the programme makers at the ABC? The AM segment was carefully staged – by the presenter’s comments, by the selection of interview subjects, and by the lack of any pragmatic commonsense statements on Islam, Mohammed or terrorism.
Reporter Michael Edwards took it upon himself to declare:
“Another similarity among those who carry out violent acts in the name of ideology or religion is a sense of being disenfranchised from the societies they live in. This alienation, but it real or imagined, is cited by experts as the reason some young western Muslims turn to extremism.”
As if radical Islamic terrorists seeking to avenge perceived insults to their prophet need to be explained principally in psychological rather than fanatical terms, the ABC turned to Professor Lazar Stankov, a psychology “expert” from the Australian Catholic University. He had a neat three-step explanation for why people commit acts of violence such as the Paris shootings:
- Nastiness, readiness to accept aggressive acts towards others.
- Having a grudge. Believing that something is not fair.
- Resorting to some kind of higher order to justify acting.
Then AM and Michael Edwards wheeled in Andrew Macleod, a “terrorism expert” at Kings College London and the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC:
“One of the things that we’ve seen most recently with terrorist attacks is most of the attackers are feeling disengaged with the community or the society that they’re living in and they’ve reached out to extremism to get a sense of belonging.”
It might have been thought that Macleod, a former Australian Army officer, would have had a more pragmatic assessment of the problem. If this perverted view of radical Islam should take hold in the community — the aim being a softening-up by the ABC’s groupthinkers and some other media organisations — we may as well disband all the organs of our security services and turn over the defence of the country to the Human Rights Commission.
As things stand, we must rely on France for a lead. Not only have its journalists and cartoonists shown bravery in their determination to publish in the face of deadly threat, its ordinary citizens are leading the charge against the rising pressure of seven million Muslim migrants in their country. Energised by a number of recent books – Le Suicide Francais; Musulmans vous nous Mentez (“Muslims, you lie to us”); Reconquista ou Mort de l”Europe (“Win Europe back or she dies”); and most notably Soumission by Michel Houellebecq, an imagination of France under a Muslim President in 2022, ruling according to Sharia Law, and published on the very day of the Charlie Hebdo shooting – Parisiens are planning a mass protest.
An organization called La Riposte Laique (The Secular Reaction) has set Sunday January 18 for a gathering in the Place de la Bourse under the slogan Islamistes hors de France (Muslims Get Out). This group founded seven years ago, has been strengthened by the increase in atrocities in recent months.
The day before Islamic State issued its worldwide call to kill infidels wherever they live, a rap video swept France — Medine Don’t Laik — which put the Islamist agenda in dramatic, semi-musical form. Celebrity rapper Medine called openly for Muslims to crucify non-believers, sang of cutting off hands, legally cutting throats under sharia, and putting fatwas on the heads of fools who fail to heed the Prophet’s call. It’s had hundreds of thousands of plays on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7B45h_lAEk
La Riposte Laique concluded its call to arms in these words:
Everyone knows that 2015 will be a very important year in the war for civilisation that Islam and its disciples has declared. Our people are in danger from Islam and Islamic collaborationists. Only a massive popular mobilization can prevent the emerging catastrophe.
Australia may not yet be facing the catastrophe, but it is in danger from the collaborationists, like those at the ABC, with their politically correct explanations and justifications.
Geoffrey Luck was an ABC journalist for 26 years
The horse has bolted on Muslim immigration; nothing whatsoever will turn back the clock. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali said last night on “7.30 Report”; until people recognize the schizophrenic face of Islam – peace and hate – nothing will change. She said she was sounding like a broken record with her warnings, but she also accused the ABC and the media generally of ‘self-censorship’. She’s an absolute hero of mine and always has been; the only one to talk any sense whatsoever.
BTW: will somebody be burning candles to support the Jewish man who was killed in the grocery store?
The psychologists and experts mentioned in Luck’s article have missed the point about Islamo-terrorists completely. I submit that the one thing they share in common – apart from hatred – is that they’ve all served stretches in prison and were ‘well know to police”. I think we need to drill down a bit further with this; perhaps excessive leniency in the so-called ‘criminal justice system’ has a case to answer here. Recidivism is a feature of these violent thugs’ behaviours and if we had proper sentencing and deterrents in the first place none of them would be free to walk the streets and perpetrate these atrocities. So, I sheet the blame directly back to the whacky world of “rehabilitation” and the endlessly revolving door of “justice”.
Perhaps people need to fight for that instead of engaging in meaningless symbolism with candles and signs!?
I watched the flagship 7pm ABC TV News just now (Saturday 10/1/15). Naturally the Paris sieges and shootouts were the main item. With growing incredulity, I waited for the ABC to give viewers some clue as to the motives for the attacks by what the ABC repeatedly called “gunmen”. The ABC may also have called them ‘terrorists’ (can’t remember). At no point did the ABC call the attackers “Islamist” or refer to religion at all. Finally, near the end of the item, the ABC referred to a phone call by one attacker in which the attacker (not the ABC) made a reference to ‘the prophet’ and al Qaida. That was it.
I think the new slogan for the ABC should be , “I am NOT Charlie!”
Correct, Tony. I have just replayed the complete Paris terrorism story on the 7pm News on iView., and made detailed notes.
Throughout, the Islamic terrorists were referred to as “gunmen”, “the brothers”, “a third gunman”, “the wanted men” and “a man reportedly armed with an assault rifle”. That man (the terrorist holding hostages in the Jewish food store) was thereafter referred to twice only by his name, Coulibaly.
Barbara Miller reported: “The question now for authorities is whether there are any more “potential attackers” still on the loose.” She then said: ” Al Quaeda in Yemen praised the “three gunmen”, and most strangely: “The Prime Minister….says a clear failing in security and intelligence allowed 17 innocent people to die.” (Is Miller including the three terrorists?)
Back in the studio, Nicole Chettle said: “It’s morning in France, where there are still unanswered questions, and “another fugitive” on the run. She then returned to Mary Geirin in Paris who reported that ….”the government has told its people to expect more attacks” – without indicating where from.
Well after the three terrorists had been killed, their motives established from their own statements, and the co-ordination of the two attacks admitted by Coulibaly, this report scandalously failed to tell viewers that it was all due to radical Islamic extremists killing in the name of Mohammed.
The assiduous avoidance, by two reporters in Paris and the studio presenter, of any reference to Islam, Islamic terrorists, jihad or the role of religion or ideology indicates strongly an editorial direction and policy. It is to be hoped that this will provoke energetic protests to the ABC.
That was all apparent to my husband and myself watching yesterday (and most other times, as well). I remember having an argument six months ago with a retired journalist from “The Age” about bias in the ABC. He claimed it wasn’t really possible to detect bias and was probably only obvious anyway because of a priori ideas of my own. When I responded that I’d been an English teacher and that I assiduously taught this in school by looking at the same reports in 3 separate newspapers it was comparatively easy – at Year 10 level – to detect bias! Fortunately, the syllabus was then asking us to teach ‘values’ inherent in a text, as well as ideologies. Bingo!! It must make journalists feel better to think bias isn’t detectable but, from my experience, a reasonably clever Year 10 student can spot it if taught correctly!!
The ABC makes me sick.
A couple of comments about this issue.
Firstly, I regard the Charlie Hebo deaths more as assassinations than a typical terror attack. In the latter, who dies is beside the point, as long as somebody does. At Charlie Hebdo, specific targets, specific people, were sought out and murdered. In one sense, this could be seen as comforting to those members of the public who aren’t specifically in the Islamist gunsights, but more worrying for those who are, since any anti-Islamist provocation may set in train the formation of a death squad to take YOU out. Once that happens a few times, I think the degree of self-censorship will soar. It’s much easier to comment if there are 20 million other targets, much less so if there is you and a few others.
Secondly, I was thinking about the thoroughly modern trope “it’s only a tiny minority of Muslims who murder civilians like this, the vast majority are peaceful”. Yes, well. In any social group, there are only 1 or 2 % who have the psychopathic steeliness to murder strangers. Cold comfort in many respects, since that still makes a pool of millions in a reservoir of 1.5 billion. Nevertheless, true as it goes. What worries me more are the next levels of violence. Firstly, every nation has armed forces, a large group of (mainly) men who, IF REQUIRED, are prepared to kill someone else when ordered. This latent violence is completely different to psychopathic murder – the soldier is disciplined, acting lawfully, awaits orders and commands, behaves peacefully and respectfully when in the community, and doesn’t go on murderous rampages if not sent to combat for a few years. Nevertheless, there is therefore a large pool of men who would, under the right circumstances, commit violent acts. If their loyalty is to Islam rather than Australia or France, then they can be gradually inculcated to defend Islam and the Prophet, rather than grow flowers and watch TV.
Thirdly, the largest pool is of so-called condoners, those who would never commit violent acts but agree with the general strategy and directions of the Islamist movement. This means things like sending their sons to firebrand Islamist-controlled mosques and schools, attending sermons and conferences supportive of Islamist aims, talking positively in the community about Islamic cultural superiority over that of the West, and so on. Thus there is a large core of positive reinforcement to the violent acts of the few (albeit they may be condemned as “going too far”), and no angry young man with Sharia and the New Caliphate in his heart ever feels himself to be an isolated outcast or pariah. Thus we may be talking about a majority of Muslims in Australia as receptive to the aims of the Islamists, even if they are squeamish about the violence at the sharp end of the movement.
I personally think there could never be a Sharia Revolution in Australia, but in 15 or 20 years we could find Indonesia and Turkey and other “moderate” Muslim countries in the same hardcore fundamentalist camp as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, with large pockets of agitation (lavishly funded by Fundamentalist Islam) in Western countries with large Muslim populations for separate laws and governance (these things are already underway). The unwillingness of the West (due predominantly to the current alliance between the Left and Islam) to vigorously defend progress, enlightenment and the separation of Church and State (at least where Islam is concerned) will only accelerate these trends.
One can only conclude that the reluctance shown by the ABC, Fairfax Media and left-wing journalists elsewhere to acts of Islamic terrorism is a cowardly form of halal certification. How many murders have to occur, how many Christians and minority Islamic sects killed or ethnically cleansed from Islamic countries, how many young girls’ and women’s life prospects enslaved before these journalists start to defend and uphold the tolerant and inclusive values of the West?
Clearly Islam is the problem and the default response of living on your knees is not the solution.
It is one thing thing to express empathy with “Je Suis Charlie”, it is another thing to get off one’s knees and live up to it. Je Suis Charlie is not a slogan, it is a call to arms. We must live it.
Halal certification of the news! Thanks to GerardB, this creative phrase perfectly describes the ABC’s approach to self-consorship and attempted modification of community perceptions. I began by drawing attention to the bias of one current affairs programme. Within a few days, matters had got worse, as Tony Thomas pointed out. After proving his observation, I have now lodged this official complaint to the ABC:
This complaint is to demand answers to the following questions:
Why was all mention of Islam, Islamic terrorists, jihad and revenge in the name of Allah avoided in the report on the situation in Paris, given that all three terrorists had been killed, and their motivation established from their own statements?
Was this avoidance of the significance of the terrorists’ affiliation and motivation the result of an editorial or ABC policy directive?
Why has the ABC taken it upon itself to censor the news in the protection of Islam and Muslims?
Throughout the report, the Islamic terrorists were referred to as “gunmen”, “the brothers”, “a third gunman”, “the wanted men” and “a man reportedly armed with an assault rifle.”
Barbara Miller referred to “more potential attackers still on the loose” and quoted al-Quaeda in Yemen praising the “three gunmen.”
Nicole Chettle described the escaped female terrorist as “another fugitive”; Mary Geirin avoided describing the jihadist who murdered four people in a food store by simply referring to him (twice) by name.
This travesty of truth masquerading as a reliable report, sheltering under the professed reputation for honesty and objectivity of the national broadcaster, went to air scrupulously avoiding the salient facts already established in three days of intense journalistic coverage. The motives of the three terrorists had been established by their own statements proclaiming their actions in the name of Allah and revenge for insults to Mohammed. The planning and co-ordination of the two attacks had been admitted by the terrorist Coulibaly in the food store.
This report scandalously failed to tell viewers that it was all due to radical Islamists, killing in the name of Mohammed.