Let's Hear it for Tolerance...

In a move that is sure to ignite heated debate not only about education, but also the direction of the United Kingdom, an undercover investigation by the BBC has discovered that schools under the auspices of the "Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland" organisation have been teaching some really interesting content. The investigation also uncovered that this content is being taught in some schools in the UK that are owned by the government of Saudi Arabia.

The schools in question are located throughout Britain and are "teaching" somewhere up to 5000 impressionable students from the ages of six to eighteen. The challenging content includes teaching students about Sharia Law, particularly the more brutal and heinous punishments available. For example, students are being taught that thieves will have their hand cut off for a first offense and then a foot for any subsequent offense.

Interestingly, the students are being taught that the process is humane as the stump where one's hand used to be is cauterised so as to prevent the thief from bleeding to death.

Some of the other juicer educational experiences include reminding students that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of Allah. Therefore, suitable punishments for homosexuals include stoning them to death, burning them to death, and throwing them off a cliff. The common denominator here being that homosexuals must die for their sins.

Funnily enough, the Jews do not miss out either in these weekend schools. Students are taught that those evil Jews are hell bent on world domination. And, if given the chance they will seek to take over and control all of the world's wealth and resources.

Ultimately, the theme of all this content seems to be "if you do not follow Islam, or convert immediately, then you are going to be damned to hell!"

Nothing like preaching a little love and tolerance, is there?


Apparently, Ofsted, the British educational watchdog, is doing a little investigating of its own and will soon report to the Education Minister, Michael Gove. I might try and see if I can follow this story through to its conclusion, if for no other reason than I am interested in the implications of teaching such content in schools generally.

To be honest, I do not see any problems with teaching the fundamentals of Sharia Law and what punishments are available under that system. It could be done in a manner that is comparative and without bias. However, the teaching of content that suggests that Jews are focused on world domination through control of financial and natural resources combined with the idea that any one who is not Muslim is damned to hell is likely to be much more problematic and controversial.

The anti-Semitism in the textbooks is surely going to get people fired up. The whole affair is likely to see some interesting to and fro in the cyber-sphere on all manner of things ranging from political correctness to tolerance.

I am surprised that I am yet to see the arguments rehashed that suggest within 20 years Britain will be a Muslim State under Sharia Law. Perhaps even the more extreme protagonists will start to suggest that this is the tip of the iceberg and it will not be long before Europe is an Islamic Caliphate. Hence, the poster and the idea that it will not take long to ignite differences to a flash point.

Does it all start with education?

Roger Ailes and Nazism...

Roger Ailes is the Head of Fox News Channel. I am not convinced that "news" is the right word for what Fox does, but to each their own.

However, it is Ailes' comments about National Public Radio (NPR) that have me shaking my head and muttering WTF is this man talking about?

Ailes said the following in reference to NPR in the wake of the firing of Juan Williams:

"They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism."

Comparing NPR executives to Nazis is absurd in the extreme. It also highlights a complete lack of understanding of Nazism and ultimately the development of the Final Solution and the holocaust perpetrated against European Jews.

Ailes remarks remind me of the content of a subject I used to teach at universities throughout Indonesia on advocacy. Advocates must be conscious of their biases and their prejudices so that they do not begin to exaggerate to the point of absurdity in trying to sustain their argument. Comparing NPR executives to Nazis is an exaggeration in a most offensive form. If Ailes was not always so focused on getting off cheap shots at liberal institutions and the liberals themselves, then his brain might have kicked into gear before his mouth did and he might have thought twice about his comparison of NPR executives and Nazis.

In hindsight he did reflect a little and offered an apology of sorts, but not to the NPR executives. Ailes offered his apology to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

Part of the reason why I do not watch Fox News Channel is that there is nothing that I can reconcile with the slogans "Fair and Balanced" or "We Report, You Decide", as both are clearly misnomers for what FNC does.

Mahatir, 9/11, and Jews...

There is one thing you can always count on from the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, controversy. Whether what he says is true or not seems to be irrelevant. But, on some issues the man is downright creative in the manner he constructs his conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, probably more disturbing is the suggestion that the targeting and killing of Jews has failed to solve the "Jewish problem" at least as he sees it. I wonder if I am reading too much into the implied 'if you are going to do it, then do it right' sentiment that he appears to be suggesting.

If the quotes attributed to him are correct then he paints a pretty disturbing picture of what goes on in his head. It would seem that the only difference between him and Ahmadinejad (who is supposedly of Jewish ancestry) is that Mahatir does not deny that a massacre (probably a little less severe than a using the terms genocide or holocaust to describe the 'Final Solution' envisaged by the Nazis) took place during the Second World War.

The conspiracy theory that if the US can put together a film like Avatar, then they are more than capable of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks and blaming them on Muslims as an excuse to wage war on Muslims. The idea that the 9/11 attacks were not all that they seem, and that the US may have been involved in setting up the attacks on themselves is not a new one. Let's face it, even Rosie O'Donnell is on the record saying that the 9/11 attacks were staged and that the World Trade Centers were brought down with strategically placed bombs.

However, it is his comments about Jews that are most disturbing. Mahatir seems to think that the world's problems are caused by Jews and some kind of Jewish lobby. This is not new either as a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, what is a little disturbing is that he seems to think that confining the Jews to ghettos and then periodically massacring them is not necessarily a bad idea, but rather it has not been done properly as the Jews have always managed to rise up again and thrive once again.

Mahatir is quoted as saying, "even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world."

Then again, one needs to take whatever Mahatir says with a grain of salt, the man is renowned for his anti-US and anti-Semitic stances. I guess he is certainly not putting his name forward as a man of peace and reconciliation.

Circumcision in Australia -- Legal?

I was reading an interesting article earlier today and thought it was worthy of a post. Not quite sure how it fits in with my recent posts on alleged Indonesian criminals and the underage marriage and the alleged subsequent abuse of Manohara, I am guessing it doesn't. However, circumcision is something that we have thought about with young Will.

We talked about it with the doctor while we were in Indonesia. I am not sure 'talked about' is the right phrase, as we broached the subject with the doctor and his response was, "no need!" And, that was the end of the conversation. We have not talked about it with the doctor here and to be perfectly honest we have not talked about it between ourselves either.

So, onto the post.

Circumcision was a routine procedure when I was born. Estimates suggest that the rate of circumcision around the time of my birth was somewhere around 90%. Generally, the reasons for the procedure were health based. Simply, it was healthier to be without a foreskin than to be with one. It has only been in more recent times that the argument has moved to the rights of the child, serious questioning of the supposed health benefits of circumcision, and whether the "mutilation" is warranted. I must say that I have never felt mutilated myself and harbor no ill will to my parents for allowing the procedure to be done.

The current rate of circumcision in Australia is about 12%. The numbers are approximate. However, it is suggested that a great number of the circumcisions that still occur are for religious reasons. Religions where circumcision is required include Judaism and Islam.

The debate not only revolves around the physical and health implications of the procedure but also the legal implications. The recent discussion on this point by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute says that the criminal and civil law with respect to circumcision is far from certain, and in fact circumcision may abuse the rights of the child.

Circumcision is the general term in the sense that the mere utterance of the word is recognized by most However, in legal terms, the correct term for where problems may arise is 'non-therapeutic male circumcision'.

The main concerns revolve around the physical loss and then the social and psychological effects of having one's foreskin removed. The issues though are more interesting in that there is some debate as to whether circumcision is in fact an assault or wounding or maybe even grievous bodily harm.

If the argument is accepted that the procedure constitutes any one of the actions noted in the previous sentence, then it is unclear as to whether a parent could in fact provide consent to allow their child to be harmed. Nevertheless, the jury is still out on whether the procedure is in reality something that causes an injury in the strict legal sense.

So, is Will to be circumcised? The jury is still out on this one as well.

This post probably lends itself to a gratuitous posting of a penis picture...but I won't go there.

A Report on the Banality of Evil

I am currently reading "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil" by Hannah Arendt. I am reading the Penguin Classic version that was originally published in 1963 and the reprint that I have from 2006. I have been wanting to read it for some time, and I finally managed to get a copy from Barnes & Noble when I was in the US in late March.

What first intrigued me about Eichmann was the international law implications of his kidnapping from Argentina and subsequent trial in Israel. The idea that Eichmann was nothing more than a functionary in an evil system is also an interesting way to examine the holocaust; evil perpetrated by ordinary men and women (primarily men).

The reviews of the book are best described as mixed, with some all for the Arendt account and others highly critical of her approach and use of "facts". I guess I will make my own judgment on these issues once I have finished reading the book.

Anyway, I will add a postscript once I have finished. I should also take it of my list of books that I wished I owned seeing that I now own a copy.

Resurrection -- A Christian Rip-Off?

"Gabriel's Revelation" is a 1 metre long tablet with ink writing that has been dated to the period just before Jesus was immaculately born into this world. The tablet is said to challenge the uniqueness of the Christian story of the resurrection and is also said to suggest that Jesus and his followers may have misappropriated an earlier version of the resurrection story to fulfill their own ends.

The tablet only has 87 lines and some think it to be part of the Dead Sea Scrolls and in some way associated with John the Baptist. However, it might not be as cut and dried as some might have us believe. The best part of the tablet is smudged and therefore requires some creative interpretation. This is what the believers need to say that those interpreting the tablet to say that Jesus and his disciples misappropriated the resurrection scenario from somewhere else have it wrong.

The smudged passage might say that "after three days in the grave the messiah will raise again". If this is true and the tablet has been accurately dated then it stands to reason that there was a resurrection story pre-dating the resurrection of Jesus. The question then is, was Jesus aware of the story and did he co-opt it for his own purposes? Then again who cares and does it make any difference to the accounts of the event laid out in the Gospels?

The critical line is the 80th line which begins with "In three days ..." and a little further on includes the verb "to live". It has been suggested that the passage refers to a Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed in 4BC by the Romans. The passage apparently reads in full that the angel Gabriel commands Simon to live again after three days.

The argument goes that it was the Christian texts that influenced the Jewish texts on the resurrection idea. However, this revelation would seem to suggest that the opposite is true; the Jewish texts influenced the Christian texts. It must be noted that Christian scholars do not accept this interpretation and this is hardly surprising considering what is at stake.

The tablet is owned by a Swiss-Israeli antiques collector named David Jeselsohn (pictured). I am certain that there will be more to this story in the future...

A Camden Update...

The reaction in the press has been swift and this reaction has reached not only Indonesia but much further afield to the like of the United Kingdom from whence us convicts originated from many a generation ago!

As I posted earlier, it seems that there are others that are also of the belief that the ability of the Camden Council to reject the proposal based on traffic concerns seemed all too convenient and a little too political.

Since the decision last night a huge wooden crucifix has been erected on the site and a passage from the Bible affixed to it 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)."

Let me play Devil's Advocate here for a bit and raise a few questions.

Some of the interviews with local residents reflected that the happiness that they felt with the rejection of the development proposal had nothing to do with planning issues but an intense desire not to have Muslims in the community because they would build Mosques, ghetto-ize Camden, and make Camden a hot bed of fundamentalist Islamic activity.

1. Is Australia truly a multicultural nation or is that just lip service to an ideal?

2. Isn't it true that racism is alive and well in Australian small towns with limited numbers of migrants?

3. Would this planning / development proposal been rejected if the school was to be an Anglican, Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish school?

4. Isn't it true that schools have always been built in rural areas and usually on farm land converted for that purpose?

There are probably a thousand other questions I could ask but these four will suffice for now.

I am certain that the Quranic Society will appeal this decision to the Land and Environment Court and I think they have a good chance of winning. It seems the objections on which the Council based its decision play more to political expediency than good development sense.

There is also a history in the sense that the last time a similar case came before the Court where a development application was rejected by the Baulkham Hills Council for an Islamic Prayer Hall for reasons that it did not fit the community profile, the Council decision was overturned by the Court. The prayer hall has been built!

For Australia to really move forward and become a leader in community relations we have to escape this culture of fear and religious intolerance.

Sinful Valentine's Day

This is a verbatim copy of a comment I posted to Indonesia Matters and relates to a posting on that site regarding attempts to erase Valentine's Day from the social calendar because it is a day of sin. The comments also relate to some of the comments of other commentators to the post (so go read the original post for yourself)...

I guess this is why the term "globalization" was coined! Rapidly developing technology and ease of communication means that cultural influences other than our own can permeate the whole world -- some good, some bad but that's the way it goes.

The only way to stop it is to prevent people from communicating with each other, prevent travel to different local regions and foreign locales, and to generally restrict the basic rights of citizens -- if this were to happen then we might have a real conspiracy on our hands!

But that said it is a creative approach to whip out an old law or create new laws that label certain cultural traditions like Valentine's Day a sin and then let the very heavy hand of the law deal with it! It is not the right approach but you do what you do!

Jewish conspiracies and Jews ruling the world through the domination of the mass media and the monopolization of capital and any other theory out there all stem from that same source that the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ and are to be punished for it. Let's not forget that the crucifiction of Christ was possibly a political power play and that Christ was a Jew and the distinction between Christianity and Judaism may have really been a result of seeking out political advantge in tumultuous times (these differences have supposedly become more pronounced over time)...a reading of the Gospels will enlighten the reader to where the blame game originated.

Yet, when it is all said and done this absolute domination of world affairs has not allowed the Jews to remove the nonsense being spouted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about wiping Israel of the face of the map from public discourse -- so much for world media domination! To be brutally honest I do not see the extermination of the Jews bringing about any positive changes in my life, it has been tried before although Ahmadinejad would have us believe that the Holocaust is a fiction and that it never occurred. But obviously listening to the man it is something that he desires to see happen now -- a world leader advocating the extermination of a group of people from the earth -- it is time we as a global community woke up and smelled the coffee, we have a serious problem here.

The extermination of groups of people removes from the very fabric of our communities those things that make us what we are. There is no glory or honor in genocide and the Holocaust is a history lesson that as human beings we must not be allowed to forget. even more importantly it is something we must not allow ourselves to repeat!

Killing people for their religious beliefs is just plain morally wrong and I do not think my moral compass is broken on this point!

However, I do see my life taking a significant turn for the worst if Ahmadinejad was to rule my world -- definitely no heaven there!

It reminds me of an oft used argument from the Indonesian context where every time there was rumblings and under-currents of dissatisfaction with the economy the Soeharto Government trotted out the race card that it was Indonesian Chinese almost total domination of the local markets that was the root cause of all this economic evil -- rubbish!

But the real question here is that if I give my wife a box of chocolates and flowers on any other day besides 14 February have I committed a sin in Bukittinggi or some other part of Sumatra?
I would have thought there are more pressing issues in those parts of Indonesia than the sinful nature of globalization and additions to Indonesia's diverse cultural traditions.

A little bit more love and tolerance in the world from all sides would serve us much better than some of the vitriol being espoused here. The issue here is the value of foreign cultural traditions and the manner they are incorporated into local cultural traditions and not one of the big Zionist conspiracy to rule the world -- the Jewish conspiracy is an alternate reality that just does not stand up to scrutiny.

Whatever happened to that base Indonesian ideological concept of unity in diversity?

I do not expect to convert any diehards to my cause of tolerance but as Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi said "You must be the change you want to see in the world"!

So, on that note thanks for reading this far :)