The Legitimacy of the Obama Presidency...

It is funny in that perverse kind of a way to watch Republicans dodge, but not really, questions of Obama's citizenship and subsequent legitimacy with respect to being president. The latest Republican to play the double talk game is none other than House Speaker John Boehner. It is equally funny in that perverse kind of a way that Republicans still imagine that this is an issue that is going to be a major vote getter for them in the 2012 presidential elections.

Nah, Boehner hedged his bets as he is often seen doing on tobacco. Boehner's argument is in essence that he believes Obama is a citizen and a Christian. Now, according to Boehner, if the good ol' state of Hawaii says that Obama was born there then that is good enough for him. On the is Obama a Christian or a Muslim front Boehner is much more non-committal and merely says that he takes the president on his word. After all, in Boehner's mind President Obama has stated he is Christian so that will have to do for now.

The real funny here is that rather than being unequivocal in stating that the question of Obama's citizenship and religion is a non-issue, a dead issue, Boehner goes on to say that the American public is entitled to believe whatever they want. This is indeed true, Mr. Speaker. If Americans want to believe that no US man ever landed on the moon and that it was all a big hoax constructed in a studio in Hollywood somewhere as an elaborate ruse to fool the Russians that they had lost the space race, then they are entitled to believe that too. Similarly, if Americans want to believe that there are a couple of aliens on ice at Roswell or in Area 51, then they can do that too.

The fact that democrats lost so much ground at the mid-terms was not because they did, or continue to do, a woeful job in government. Rather it is a reflection of the inability of democrats to remobilise the 2008 base that swept Democrats into power and Obama into the White House. There is no guarantee that the Democrats will make the same mistake twice. The balancing factor here is that the current state of the economy and Obama's difficulties in following through on some of his election campaign rhetoric means that it must be easier for Republicans to mobilise their base, including the fringe represented by the Tea Party.

But, as the Speaker of the House, the responsible move would have been to be unequivocal that Obama is a citizen, this is no longer an issue and Republicans will not be using it to question the legitimacy of the President. One would have thought that Republicans would have believed that Obama's domestic and international track record since 2008 provides more than enough problems for the Democrats that there is no need to resort to fear-mongering about citizenship and Obama's supposed Muslim faith.

All that said, I remain an interested observer.

Populist Politics At Its Worst: Tony Abbott, Foreign Aid, Islamic Schools...

Tony Abbott has shown his true colours while simultaneously showing why he is unfit to be Prime Minister of Australia; he simply does not have Australia's long-term and strategic interests at heart. The man who wants to become the man who makes "shit happen" rather than just talking about when and why "shit happens" has decided that an easy and populist target for cuts to the foreign aid budget is a successful Australian program that helps build and fund Islamic schools in Indonesia.

This racist and xenophobic policy about flip was cased in a need to strengthen Australia's natural disaster relief fund coffers in opposition to the Gillard Labor Government's attempt to introduce a special tax levy to fund the AUD 5 billion in repairs that flooding has caused in Queensland.

To be honest, I would rather not pay the levy. But, also in all honesty, I would rather pay the levy than see an aid program that has Australia's long-term interests and security in the region at its core disbanded because we might have to pay a few extra dollars a week in tax.

The reality is that Australia's involvement in building and providing ongoing support and funding for the Islamic schools program in Indonesia is a positive one. These are schools that provide an alternative opportunity and an alternative message to those being offered by the pesantrens of the fundamentalist and radical fringe of Islamic belief populated by the likes of Abu Bakar Ba'asyir (Bashir).

The Abbott proposal is nothing short of a race-based policy that takes money from a program based on the difference of the recipients. It is justified through the use of terminology that makes it sound as if these schools, and the aid program itself, are primary supporters of an Islamist network intent on destroying the Australian way of life. One almost gets the impression that Mr. Abbott is suggesting that there should be some degree of moral outrage on the part of Australians that their tax money is being channeled to those hell bent on destroying us. This is populist rhetoric designed to play to the fears of a select group of Australians.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister wannabe is misrepresenting the facts and by default the truth. These schools are Islamic schools. They are not Islamist. I would argue that there is a difference, at least in terms of the connotation of the two words. Islamic merely indicates that the underlying belief is Muslim in nature. Whereas, and in contrast, Islamist suggests that these schools are breeding grounds for some sort of fundamental revivalist and ultra-conservative Islamic belief structure that is a "clear and present danger" to our free democratic ideals. Mr. Abbott has chosen his words carefully and to play to the base fears of those receptive to his message.

The withdrawal of Australian aid to these schools is narrow-minded and a step backwards.

Tony Abbott has already proven that he is not the man Australia needs with his finger on the button when the shit really does happen.

Peace.

Ahmadiyah As A New Religion?

Can it really all be that simple?

Can it really be as simple as the Ahmadis standing up and saying, "OK, we are a new religion", and "please leave us alone"?

If you were prepared to accept the word of Priyo Budi Santoso, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and member of Golkar, then it is. It would seem that the Democrat Party of SBY is also suggesting that the establishment of a new religion will resolve the violence, the murder, and the mayhem. Well, at least, this is what Imran Muchtar is saying.

However, if the recent attacks on churches in Temanggung is anything to go by, then declaring a new religion is hardly going to be a cure for the violence being perpetrated against the Ahmadis. If mobs can go on the rampage and burn churches because a Christian man does not get the death sentence for blaspheming Islam, then this clearly does not bode well for the Ahmadis.

The Ahmadis are a sect of Islam. Perhaps not a sect that is accepted as being mainstream, but a sect all the same. If they were to branch off and call themselves a new religion this hardly resolves the issue. The core beliefs of the Ahmad remain Islamic in nature. The reality is that even if the Ahmadis were to spin themselves off from mainstream Islam, they remain Islamic in nature. For example, when King Henry VIII decided that the Catholic Church was becoming less agreeable and accepting of his needs, he decided to create a spin-off of the Roman Catholic Church and call it the Church of England.

Now, the Church of England is Christian in its orientation and beliefs. There are a few Virgin Mary issues as I understand it, but to all intents and purposes it is a Christian belief system, a Christian church. So, it does not really matter whether you are Catholic, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Church of England, Protestant, Mormon or Quaker there is an argument to be made that these are all sects of the Christian faith. It would also seem reasonable to me that even if the Ahmadis were to separate from mainstream Islam and declare themselves a new religion that they would remain in a technical sense a sect of Islam.

The answer to the Ahmadi issue is for Indonesia and her citizens to live by that creed that is encompassed in Bhinneka Tunggal Ika or the idea of having unity in diversity rather than continue down the road of intolerance and indifference to human life and existence.

Once again, the Ahmadis spinning themselves off from Islam will not resolve the violence.

Ho hum...

Is Obama Eligible to be President of the United States of America?

Yes, he is!

Nevertheless, it would seem that a group of "Birthers" will not be satisfied until such time as the president provides an original birth certificate. Yet, considering the manner in which birthers have gone about their task to date, an original birth certificate is unlikely to close off their beliefs. The cold, hard reality for birthers is that the State of Hawaii, the State where Barack Hussein Obama II was born, has already released enough data in its public records to put this to bed.

To be honest a certificate of live birth and the corresponding birth notices, both of which are contemporary to the event, should be more than enough. It is a truly bizarre claim that Obama is in essence a "Manchurian Candidate" that has been groomed since birth for this task of destroying the US from within as her president.

Interestingly, the Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, wanted to assist in putting this matter to bed. However, the State's Attorney General, David Louie, has instructed the Governor that the Governor is barred by law from releasing the private birth certificates of individuals without their consent. Simply, the only person who can consent to the release of the Obama birth certificate is Barack Obama  himself. So, if Obama remains true to past form, it would seem unlikely that a birth certificate will be forthcoming. And, to be honest it is not necessary.

Hawaii has confirmed that the original documents have been cited and confirmed and that information is contained in the State's vital records. So, to all intents and purposes, Hawaii is satisfied that Barack Hussein Obama II was born at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on 4 August 1961.

Then again, Hawaii's failure to release the originals is obviously, as the birthers will contend, all part of the grand conspiracy. After all, Obama was born in Kenya, is an Indonesian citizen and a practicing Muslim, right?

Ho hum...

Separation of Mosque and State...

One of the fundamental principles that make a democracy is that there needs to be separation between the state and the predominant religion of that state. In the Western context this is referred to as the separation of Church and State. In essence, religion plays no role in the affairs of state. This is sometime problematic as the US has found out with things like the pledge of allegiance and the display of the ten commandments at a court house.

In the Indonesian context, perhaps the terminology is the separation of Mosque and State. Indonesia is a democracy but sometimes there is a questionable separation between Mosque and State, particularly in terms of the recent drive to enact religious bylaws that may not be constitutionally valid. However, the Ministry of Religious Affairs has placed the issue firmly back in the spotlight by providing awards to Provincial Governors and District Heads for their efforts to enact and implement Syariah-inspired regional regulations.

The first issue is whether a Ministry that is supposed to represent all religions in Indonesia has acted responsibly in recognising just one of those religions, Islam. Is this indicative of favouritism or discrimination? The reality is that within the Ministry of Religious Affairs each religion is represented by its own directorate. These directorates are responsible for the administration of their own affairs. So, in this regard there is no reason why these directorates could not initiate similar awards. However, the real question is whether the Ministry would back these awards.

The awards in question were for the promotion of Islam through the enactment and implementation of Syariah-inspired regional regulations. On the entirely hypothetical front, if a province was to draft, debate, enact and implement ecclesiastical-inspired regional regulations, would these be recognised by the state and would the Ministry of Religious Affairs be favourable towards an award that recognised these efforts if a recognition initiative came from the relevant directorate? It would seem unlikely.

In the big scheme of things there is nothing wrong with the Ministry of Religious Affairs recognising and rewarding Islam-related achievements provided that these are not recognising initiatives that strip away basic human rights of Indonesian citizens. The reality is that some of those individuals recognised for their efforts to promote Islam have also promoted regional regulations that strip away basic human rights and discriminate against minorities and discriminate against women.

The fact that the Ministry has chosen to recognise Syriah-inspired regional regulations as progress seems to be politically motivated and designed to pander to Islamic political interests rather than the greater interests of the state. If this is the case then there are arguments to be made that the Ministry is crossing that degree of separation that is expected.

Ho hum...

Ariel, Is It You?

The big questions are about to be answered in the ongoing saga that doubles as the Nazriel "Ariel" Irham sex tapes trial. The biggest question of them all, in fact, "Ariel is that you in the tape making mad passionate love with Cut Tari?"

Well, according to Cut Tari, it is Ariel. There were no ifs, buts, or maybes in Cut Tari's testimony. In fact, when Cut Tari appeared to give her testimony she was asked to go to the front of the court room and watch a couple of clips of the [in]famous sex tape that she has admitted to being in. While she was there, the judges asked her who she was bumping uglies with. Cut responded, unequivocally I might add, with "why, your honours that is Ariel!"

Strangely enough, Ariel through his defense counsel is maintaining that, despite the somewhat obvious similarities between the man in the video and him, it is not him doing the bump and grind with Cut Tari. In some ways it is not hard to feel for Cut Tari. This must be an incredibly humiliating experience. She has confessed believing that the truth will set her free. Yet, it has still got to be difficult having this whole sordid affair played out in public. Nevertheless, the trial remains closed to public in order to protect the public's "innocence" and "morality" from harm.

The more interesting part about Cut Tari's testimony is that the video is placed in 2005 or 2006 as a production year. This is interesting because there is no real certainty in that time frame. So, does this mean the affair lasted for some time during that two-year period? Or, does it mean that they made so many tapes of their sexual encounters that she cannot rightly remember which tape this is? It is also interesting because Cut Tari was married in 2004. This has led to some hardliners wanting to see the whole trial process for Cut Tari cast aside and just get to burying her up to her neck and then stone the woman to death.

Folks, it is just a sex tape. It is most definitely not the end of the world as you, or we, know it! Life goes on, the band will keep playing. This whole charade is becoming increasingly not worth the effort.

Although, that said, the prosecutors are pulling out their big guns. Anton Castilani, a police officer from national headquarters has taken the stand to offer expert testimony as to whether there is any likelihood that the man in the video with Cut Tari is in fact Ariel or a very good look-a-like. Castilani's testimony seems to support the prosecution case theory that the man in the mirror is not Michael Jackson but it is Indonesia's own, Nazriel "Ariel" Irham of Peterpan fame.

I will let "you" the experts in the court of public opinion decide for yourselves. The choice bits of this photo for comparison have been pixelated. In my expert opinion, it's Ariel.

Too Much Christmas for the MUI?

Can there ever be too much Christmas cheer? Yes!

It would seem that the Indonesian arbiters of all things Islam and Muslim, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), has decided that Indonesian malls have gone overboard this year. The malls have gotten so far into the Christmas spirit that Indonesian Muslims are offended by the constant bombardment of the message of giving and peace. The MUI has a serious problem with this fat white pagan in a red suit with a long-flowing white beard, he is everywhere!

Muhyidin Junaidi of the MUI has said that this constant bombardment of Christmas cheer will lead to a very negative backlash from Indonesia's Muslim majority. According to Junaidi, the logic is obvious, Muslims do not celebrate Christmas and as such having it constantly shoved in their face would be tantamount to proselytising. Ah, Pak Junaidi, the only incitement being promoted here is by you! But, if we were to take Junaidi's logic to a logical conclusion, then all celebrations must be muted in order to not offend those that do not practice a particular faith or celebrate a particular day. Then gain, what I think Junaidi is saying is that it is OK where that celebration is being conducted by the majority. But, when it is being conducted by a minority it is then OK to discriminate against the majority and stifle their constitutional rights to celebrate.

Or perhaps, Junaidi is simply saying that any money these malls make by capitalising on the Christmas theme at this time of year is haram. Surely, the MUI could issue a fatwa that bans Muslims from putting red sprinkles on their Starbucks coffee or something. Seriously, the great majority of Indonesian Muslims that I have had the pleasure of knowing and calling friends are not offended by this time of year. They do not have to practice or even participate in the rituals that are Christmas, but they are more than happy to tolerate those that do. It is as simple as give and take; it is about mutual respect; it is about focusing on the big issues and not sweating the little stuff. It really is too bad that the MUI cannot get in touch with the vast majority of Indonesians practicing a tolerant and moderate form of the Islamic faith.

But, let's assume for a minute that a Muslim sales promotional girl was forced to wear a "Santa's little helper" outfit. And, let's assume that this is something that she finds offensive. If this young woman was fired for not wanting to wear a Santa's little helper outfit on religious grounds, then I would have a problem with that. She should simply be moved to a position that does not require her to don the Christmas garb for the duration of the festive period. Until, it reaches a stage where people are getting fired for not wearing Christmas outfits as part of their job description, then Junaidi is really only stoking the fire of religious intolerance.

To the MUI, all my Muslim friends, colleagues and acquaintances are good Muslims and good people. They are not disturbed by the fat guy in the red suit.

Ho hum...

Muslim Women Travelling Without Male Kin...

The fact that Indonesian migrant workers, especially women, are abused overseas is a tragedy. However, the fact that some would use this to push an agenda that says Muslim women should not travel far from home without male relatives by their side almost reads like, "well, you travel alone and against the wishes of Allah, then you get what you deserve!"

To then say that you are more interested in protecting the rights of women and calling for a moratorium on the sending of female Indonesian migrant workers abroad rings hollow and is hypocritical. Women do not deserve to be protected just because they are women. Women deserve to be protected because they are human beings. Women need to be protected, like men, because they have a right to earn a living and provide for their families. Women have a right to travel to find those opportunities if those opportunities exist outside of the village that they live in or the country they call home.

The reality here is that the laws exist in the migrant working sphere that should already be sufficient in most cases to protect migrant workers while they are overseas. The problem is one of enforcement on the Indonesian side of the equation. The other reality that most people fail to understand is that in most cases the prevailing laws and regulations of the country where the migrant working is employed are the ones that will operate when crimes are committed. So, an Indonesian migrant worker abused in Saudi Arabia will find that the perpetrators of violence against her are subject to Saudi laws and regulations. This is the nature of sovereignty.

I am certain that Indonesians would not want other nations riding roughshod over their sovereignty and seeking to impose their laws and regulations on them. So, why is it that in this instance Indonesians want their government to impose Indonesian laws extra-territorially on offenses being committed in Saudi Arabia?

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is not certainty of "fixing" the problems of abuse. Once again, the laws and regulations already exist, both in Indonesia and in Saudi Arabia, this is a case of enforcement.

But, alas, I digress. Back to the topic at hand.

My personal view is that where basic human rights and religion clash at the coal-face, then it is the basic human rights that must prevail. The idea that women do not have the intelligence to make decisions for themselves about what is in their best interests bothers me. The vast majority of women and men that I known are more than capable of making decisions for themselves about what is in their respective best interests. So, to suggest that for Indonesian Muslim women the best decision makers are crotchety old men in white robes is something I find offensive.

According to The Jakarta Globe, twelve Muslim organisations have come together and have decided to lobby the government for a moratorium. No news there with respect to the moratorium. The idea that the only way to solve the abuse problem is to ban Indonesian women from going to places like Saudi Arabia is akin to burying one's head in the sand. And, it is self-defeating as Saudi Arabia will just get its domestic servants from other places. It also fails to recognise that a lot of the funding that these Muslim organisations receive actually wends it way to them through processes that include remittances made by Indonesian migrant workers.

The Nahdlatul Ulama position is "let's lobby for a memorandum of understanding" and ban all Indonesians from going to Saudi Arabia until we get one. Although, I am guessing this would exclude Indonesians doing a pilgrimage to a holy place.

The more interesting of The Jakarta Globe quotes comes from Muhammadiyah which said "... under Islam, Muslim women were not allowed to travel far from home without being accompanied by male kin ...". This was then supported by Said Aqil Siradj, Chairman of NU, who said that Islam expressly forbade women from going abroad to seek money unless it was absolutely necessary, “If they just want to gain more wealth overseas, that is not allowed.”

This begs the question, "when is working for money not about generating wealth?" But, probably, more important is who should provide for these Muslim women who are prohibited from earning wealth for wealth's sake when they cannot find employment within Indonesia to support themselves or their families. The government is not able to provide or guarantee this. It is also pretty certain that the twelve Muslim organisations in this pact are not able to provide the same levels of financial security that these migrant workers, particularly women, can find from going overseas. This is definitely a more pressing issue than an MOU, isn't it?

Thus endeth another rant and rail at The RAB Experience.

Ariel: Round 2 of Peterporn in Bandung...

The death penalty for distributing pornographic videos seems a little bit harsh. Let's face it, a self-confessed pedophile claiming the religious protections of Islam was sentenced to a mere four years in the slammer for sexually violating a 12-year-old girl. On the balance of things, Ariel's case should have been tossed eons ago as he really should not be seeing any more time on the inside than he has already seen in waiting for this trial to get underway.

At best Ariel is guilty of being naive and maybe even a little stupid that he could make a couple of sex tapes that would never see the light of day. In this day and age of instant communication and advanced technology, it was only a simple matter of losing his laptop or having it stolen and the anonymity of these sex-capades was gone.

As it turns out, he lost possession of his laptop and the rest is history, as they say.

To be honest, this really is not the best test case for establishing how well the provisions of the 2008 Anti-Pornography Law work. It is difficult to see how the prosecution will be able to successfully establish the elements of the crime. It just does not seem likely that the prosecution will make out the actus reus or the mens rea of the criminal indictment.

Yet, the prosecutors have opted to pursue this case for reasons that remain unclear. But, now that they have, there is a course of action that must be completed. Hopefully, it does not result in a conviction and then even more embarrassment for Indonesia and the public prosecutors as the case wends its way through the appeal courts.

More exciting than the legal arguments doing the rounds in the court room are the divergent and extreme opinions present outside of the Bandung District Court. Most interesting was the call by the Islamic Reformist Movement (Garis) who is calling for the death penalty to be imposed on Ariel.

Unfortunately, or is that fortunately, for Garis the death penalty is not an option in this case. This is not a Sharia Law court and Ariel is not being tried for adultery. In any event, Ariel would be unlikely to be stone to death for his sexual liaison with Cut Tari. Although, in Sharia Law conducive circumstances, Cut Tari might fall victim to such an antiquated and barbaric form of punishment. This assumes of course that the prosecutors could established when the sex tapes were made and / or where they were made.

I would add that there is nothing reformist about calling for the death penalty in this case.

The base reality here is that this case has become bigger than it needed to be as a result of the self-righteousness of some of the police and prosecutors involved being pushed forward by others, including the white-robed thug brigade (aka FPI), to pursue this. Any self-respecting law enforcement agency would have done the "likely to convict" assessment on this case and determined that the likelihood of a conviction was remote and then decided it is better not to pursue it at all.

It is time to call it quits on this one. Let the man go. He has suffered much more on the public humiliation front than any subsequent jail term will exact. And, he will still have to explain to his child / children (whatever the case might be in the future) what daddy got up to in his younger years. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation (although, if I had a choice, I think I would rather be the fly on the wall in the Tiger Woods household when he has a similar conversation with his kids).

I wonder if Miyabi (aka Maria Ozawa) makes it to Indonesia whether she will swing by Bandung and catch up with Ariel. After all, she would get tongues wagging and there remains a remote chance that an Ariel and Miyabi tape could find its way into the public domain.

Release Ariel! Release Ariel Now!

Miyabi Heading to Jakarta: Will She or Won't She?

Miyabi is supposedly headed to Jakarta and will be landing some time this evening Jakarta-time. This is "supposedly" because the proof of the pudding in this case is seeing the porn star coming through the gates of the immigration checkpoint and out into the swarming masses of her fans and her haters at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport.

The cynical would automatically see that this is a Maxima stunt designed to generate a whole lot of free publicity for the film that they have made that stars Maria Ozawa. Ozawa is known more popularly in Indonesia by her working name, Miyabi. Miyabi is a legend in Indonesia. Anecdotally, at least, Miyabi is Indonesia's most popular porn star. Her status as a true legend of her genre means that she is a true legend among the white-robed thugs of the Islamic Defenders' Front (FPI) as they claim that they will do anything that they can to ensure that she no longer has the opportunity to harm the youth of Indonesia with her filth and immorality.

If Miyabi does come to Indonesia to promote her most recent film, the very non-pornographic Hantu Tanah Kusir, then it is likely that it will be done with much less fanfare. This is because wherever she goes she is likely to be targeted by the FPI. Quite simply the producers of the film from Maxima will be outlaying more on security than they would have on putting the film together.

It is amusing to see that the producer of the film, Ody Mulya Hidayat, says he did not think that there would be this much controversy about Miyabi's return to promote the film. Yeah, right! He was expecting this controversy. It is, plain and simple, a crass attempt to milk as much attention as he can from the Miyabi phenomenon.

The reality is that Miyabi visiting Indonesia does not breach any specific laws and regulations with respect to immigration. Provided Maxima has completed all the necessary paperwork and the immigration department has signed off on it, then she is free to travel in Indonesia.

The perversely funny here is that if the FPI pulled their collective heads in, then the Miyabi visit is likely to pass without too much fanfare. The film she is appearing in is not a pornographic film. Her many Indonesian fans are going to be bitterly disappointed in the lack of skin that they get to see. The film was not destined to be a blockbuster. The hope was that the FPI would get involved and make this film a water-cooler discussion point and by default boost ticket sales as people went along to see what all the fuss was about.

The other perversely funny on this topic is that the majority of her fan base in Indonesia are followers of Islam.

The fact that the FPI are beside themselves over a non-pornographic film serves to highlight how little real controversy is out there for them to protest about.

Ho hum...

Syekh Puji: Sentenced to 4 Years for Pedophilia...

Pujiono Cahyo Widiyanto (aka Syekh Puji) has been sentenced to four years in prison for procuring a 12-year-old for a sexual relationship. Syekh Puji had been arguing that he had done nothing wrong in God's eyes nor under God's Laws as his 12-year-old bride had begun menstruating before he consummated the marriage.

Syekh Puji is a Muslim and believes that Islam permits his actions. The Syekh also believes that the laws of God are far superior to the laws of 'man'. Men do not have the right to punish him because he has not committed a crime in the eyes of God. The age of consent in Indonesia for females is 16-years-old. The law does not make any exceptions for early puberty or menstruation, or even parental consent.

Well, it would seem that despite his protestations to the counter, the judges of the courts of men (and women) in Semarang decided that the Syekh was in fact guilty of having sex with a minor, Lutfiana Ulfa. It goes without saying that Syekh Puji will appeal this decision. This was confirmed by O.C. Kaligis, the Syekh's lawyer. Kaligis is getting some varied and interesting work of late. Kaligis is also the lawyer for Ariel of Peterpan fame. Ariel is currently on trial in Bandung for his alleged role in the distribution of a couple of home-made sex tapes.

It will be interesting to see what the grounds for appeal are. The law is pretty explicit with respect to the age of consent. So, it is unclear at this point as to where the court may have erred in rendering its judgment.

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?

A Traffic Stop, A Burqa, A False Report, and 6-Months Jail...

This was bound to happen sooner or later; a burqa-clad woman claiming that an overly-zealous police officer had attempted to remove her burqa forcibly in order to identify her. It is unfortunate that a false report was lodged to suggest that an incident like this took place. There are many in the community who struggle with the idea of how to reconcile respect for one's religious views and the need to be able to see people's faces as a means of identifying them.

Carnita Matthews is a 46-year-old Muslim mother of seven. She is also a P-Plate driver. P-Plates are required, by law, to be displayed on cars being driven by those who have a provisional license. The failure to display P-Plates or failure to display them correctly is an offense.

Matthews was pulled over for a random breath test by Senior Constable Paul Fogarty in the southwestern Sydney suburb of Woodbine. By all accounts, except for the account of Matthews and her legal team, Fogarty was going about his duties as a police officer. During the course of this breath test it became apparent to Fogarty that Matthews was a P-Plater and that she was not displaying her P-Plates in accordance with the law. So, Fogarty fined Matthews for the infringement. Matthews then lodged a complaint three days later that suggested that Fogarty had been aggressive and had attempted to remove her veil.

The complaint was in the form of a statutory declaration. A statutory declaration is a legal document and there are relatively severe penalties for making false declarations, including jail time. Unfortunately for Matthews there is a police car video of the events as they unfolded. The video shows that at no time did Fogarty attempt to touch Matthews or remove her veil. In fact, the video shows Matthews raising her voice to Fogarty and telling him that he is a racist and that all police officers are racist. Matthews also suggests that Fogarty's problem is that he saw here wearing a burqa and assumed certain things about her.

Matthews specific words were "You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn't handle it. All cops are racist."

The case went to the Campbelltown Local Court. The case was heard before Magistrate Robert Rabbidge. Magistrate Rabbidge was unequivocal in his interpretation of the events based on the evidence before him. MMagistrate Rabbidge stated that Matthews made a false statement and that this was a crime that was "deliberate, malicious and ruthless". He went on to say "There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she knew that the complaint she was making was false."

It would seem that Magistrate Rabbidge's primary concern relates to how the system would or would not cope with a continual barrage of false declaration, and in the Magistrate's view "The system would collapse, of course, if people are making false and wrong complaints to authorities."

Magistrate Rabbidge then sentenced Matthews to six-months in jail. The defense, as was expected, lodged an immediate "all grounds" appeal to have the matter heard at the District Court. Matthews was then granted bail pending the appeal.

However, before the sentence was handed down, the defense did make a novel and creative legal argument that the case had to be dismissed because this was a case of mistaken identity and the police had no way of proving that the person who lodged the statutory declaration was in fact Matthews. In an attempt to illustrate this point, Matthews attended the Local Court hearing with a friend clad in a burqa that was exactly the same as the one Matthews was wearing. The point being to challenge all those in attendance to definitively identify her as the complainant and not just another burqa-wearing woman.

The argument failed because the police were able to submit signatures that proved that Matthews had signed the statutory declaration.

The most interesting point going forward relates to Magistrate Rabbidge's assertion that police have an onerous duty in dealing with the public and that "There is an absolute and clear duty on police to satisfy who they are dealing with." This would suggest that police have a right to request veiled women to make it possible for police to identify them if such a request is made.

I wonder if veiled women refuse to remove the veil, for the purposes of identifying them, will be arrested?

On the practical front. I am wondering how a burqa-wearing woman goes about getting a driver's license if it is impossible to identify them because of their chosen attire? I wonder whether incidents like these will drive technological advancements that will allow hand-held retinal scanning technology to be used by police to identify women wearing a full-face veil?

I was eavesdropping on a conversation on the train the other day that was discussing the pros and cons of wearing a burqa with respect to identification and security. One of the people put forward an idea that I have heard a few times before. In essence, it goes like this: "if you are not allowed to wear a motorcycle helmet into a bank for security reasons, then how do you allow a burqa-wearing woman to enter a bank?" This person then went on to provide a range of possibilities including that the burqa-wearing woman might not be a woman at all, but rather a man intent on robbing the bank.

I was smiling to myself as I listened (oops eavesdropped) on this conversation. It was not all that long ago that  Noordin M Top, now dead terrorist, was known to be wearing a burqa as a means of avoiding detection. If I can find the link to that old story I will post it later.

But, I digress. This case is one I will try and follow through the appeal process. It is a case that is likely to allow for much heated discussion. It is also a case that is likely to polarise community views on how Australia want to go forward and what levels of tolerance we have as a "multicultural" community. There are already plenty of people lining up on either side of this fight. There will be those old Pauline Hanson supporters that will be advocating that Australia take the French approach and legislate to ban the burqa. They are likely to get some pretty solid support from the likes of Fred Nile of the Christian Democratic Party, particularly as he has already tried to introduce a bill to the NSW parliament to ban the burqa.

These are indeed interesting times in which we live!

TitS: A Fan of Gandhi...

There is always something to be said about "practice what you preach" or "do as I say and not as I do". Perhaps, good ol' Tifatul Sembiring (aka TitS) should have taken his own advice by way of Gandhi instead of taking to Twitter and other social networking mediums as a means of defending his actions post that fateful Michelle Obama handshake incident.

Therefore, it was with interest that I read this TitS tweet as it entered my Twitter-sphere.

Maybe TitS should take a whole lot more time in conquering his enemies with love rather than trying to ban things that are almost impossible to ban, like porn for instance. Time to show a little love, TitS...If I am not mistaken, Vicky Vette would be happy to receive a little of that love!

So, does quoting Gandhi, a devout Hindhu, amount to an exhibition of religious tolerance?

Ahmadinejad vs. TitS...

It is pretty sad to suggest that Ahmadinejad can show anyone the way to do things right, but...

At least Ahmadinejad seems to be true to what he believes in. I guess there is no need for Ahmadinejad to take to Twitter and Facebook in an attempt to explain the "touch". Too bad, Tifatul Sembiring (aka TitS) can only talk the talk and not walk the walk.

So, what is the "look" on SBY's face suggest?

My thanks to Pak Dedy A. Prasetyo for the photo.

Vicky Vette & TitS...

It would seem Tifatul Sembiring (aka TitS) has gone global. He is no longer just an Indonesia joke but a joke on a worldwide scale. Impressive!

This whole handshake affair could have been nipped in the bud by TitS by simply fessing up that he touched her hand and it was what it was; a handshake in the course of greeting a foreign dignitary.

Instead, TitS has taken to Twitter to say that he was forced to shake the First Lady's hand against his better judgment and wishes. It is one thing to be pious and take your beliefs seriously. It is a complete other thing to be caught out using religion and your beliefs to crassly advance your own political ambitions. As it is, the video of the incident seems to suggest otherwise on how the handshake went down.

However, it would seem that there are plenty of women out there who would now like to have the opportunity to press the flesh, so to speak, with the Indonesian Minister for [Mis]Communication and [Mis]Information. Among the more notable flesh pressers is the irrepressible Vicky Vette. Ms. Vette is better known for her international work as a porn star with ample proportions.

Here is a copy of the tweet that she sent to TitS. Do you think the "pubic" part is a Freudian slip?

Meanwhile, here are a few photos of Vicky Vette in all her glory...

Barack Obama's Indonesian Tranny Nanny

Some things are just good enough as they are. So, this is a simple cut and paste from gawker.com. I particularly liked the part about Glenn Beck, so much so that I highlight it so that you won't miss it.

Barack Obama's trip to his ancient Muslim homeland of Indonesia is splashing all sorts of tender boyhood memories across the newspapers, like his gay male nanny who later became a transvestite volleyball player. Glenn Beck just came in his pants.


On the occasion of his Indonesia trip, the New York Times canvasses the old neighborhood for memories of young Barry. And look what they found!


"His nanny was an openly gay man who, in keeping with Indonesia's relaxed attitudes toward homosexuality, carried on an affair with a local butcher, longtime residents said. The nanny later joined a group of transvestites called Fantastic Dolls, who, like the many transvestites who remain fixtures of Jakarta's streetscape, entertained people by dancing and playing volleyball."


Obama's association with a Muslim gay will no doubt add fuel to the fire for conservatives who argue that he is attempting to bring Sharia law, and its well known relaxed attitude toward homosexuality, to the United States.


The Times also found some boyhood friends who revealed Obama's childhood plot to become president and nationalize the banks:


"Mr. Obama asked a group of boys whether they wanted to grow up to be president, a soldier or a businessman. A president would own nothing while a soldier would possess weapons and a businessmen would have money, the young Obama explained.


Mr. Januadi and his younger brother, both of whom later joined the Indonesian military, said they wanted to become soldiers. Another boy, a future banker, said he would become a businessman.


"Then Barry said he would become president and order the soldier to guard him and the businessman to use his money to build him something," Mr. Januadi said. "We told him, ‘You cheated. You didn't give us those details.'"


Of course he cheated, Mr. Januadi. How naive can you be about this monster?


[Photo of statue of Obama as a boy in Indonesia via AP]


Send an email to the author of this post at john@gawker.com.

Are Mr and Mrs Obama Muslim?

Some kindling for the fire...

I wonder how long till these photos become "talking points" on conservative television and radio as proof positive that not only is the President a Muslim, but his wife is as well. After all, photos don't lie, do they?

No apologies for posting these pictures (by way of Reuters). The photos are from the visit Mr and Mrs Obama (aka Mr. President and the First Lady) made to the Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta this morning.

Tifatul Sembiring -- The Minister for Hypocrisy & Stupidity...

The litany of stupidity that continues to encircle the Minister for [Mis]Communication and [Lack of] Information is sort of like slowing down to watch a car crash. However, when it comes to Tifatul Sembiring (aka TitS) it is all self-imposed. The man is a hypocrite who has used religion, Islam, to create an image of piety for himself.

Yet, the latest series of events shows the man to be a fraud who is prepared to go to any lengths to cultivate an image. For a man who is supposed to have his finger on the pulse of communication and information, and particularly the technology that supports that, he has been found wanting yet again.

The "event" in question is the shaking of Michelle Obama's hand. The First Lady and the President were going through the formalities of meeting dignitaries, including Indonesian Ministers. Now, in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with men shaking hands with women. However, TitS has cultivated an image that being a pious Muslim he will not under any circumstances touch a woman to whom he is not related to. And, this is where the fun and games begin.

During the formal "meet and greet" TitS shakes hands with Michelle Obama. By my reckoning, the man would have to go a long way back in his family tree to find a familial relationship with the Obamas. Maybe all the way back to Adam and Eve. The handshake immediately piqued the attention of plenty of people who know TitS and his medieval stance on women and their relationship with men. It was hypocrisy of the highest order. It is hypocrisy that must go to the very core of his being as it exposes that his piety was a fraud perpetrated against all those who believed in what he was saying as a member of the PKS (Partai Keadilan Sejahtera).

On realising that the technology that he has been trying to shut down to all intents and purposes had caught him out, he took to social networking, Twitter in particular, to state his innocence. His innocence claim is that he was forced to shake hands with the First Lady. According to TitS, the First Lady thrust her hand out at him and kept on thrusting it towards him. This left the poor man with no option but to lightly touch her hand.

Now, have a look at the video. Too bad it has not gone viral, it should. There is no hesitation on the part of the Minister and this was not some ever-so brief touch of hands. It was a handshake.

I wonder if the Minister immediately scarpered out of the room, washed his hand with acid to get the germs of the imperialist woman of the west from him, and then proceeded to the nearest Mosque to ask for forgiveness of his God for touching a woman he is not related to. The flip side of that coin is that he immediately scarpered, flogged himself stupid and then called his mates to tell them that he had bedded the First Lady.

TitS as the Minister for Banning Porn, even you should know the difference between a good story and a wank!

Assalamu Alaikum...

You have to give it to President Obama for having the testicular fortitude to say "bugger it". I am going to do it the way I think is right. If some of my constituents back in the Good Ol' US of A have a problem with that then so be it.

The US President is in Indonesia.

The President ended his speech by uttering the words "assalamu alaikum" which generally translates to "peace be unto you". I have not watched the speech yet, but I am sure that Fox will be carrying it and repeating anything that the president has said in Arabic. Usually, at formal occasions the assalamu alaikum is combined with wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh to give assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh or Peace be unto you and so may the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

It will be interesting whether these utterances, including a desire to reinvigorate the process of improving the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims (particularly the Muslim world and the USA) will provide any impetus to reinvigorating the debate about whether Obama is really a US citizen and qualified to be president, and whether he is not only the first African-American president of the US, but the first Muslim one as well.

I am not an Arabic speaker (or writer for that matter) but I am led to believe that this is the Arabic for 'peace be unto you' السلام عليكم