Violence in the Name of Religion: Indonesia Burns...

I have been sitting here in front of the laptop and pondering whether or not to wind-up and go off on another rant about religious intolerance in Indonesia and the mockery that a small number of supposed followers of Islam are making of claims that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Prophet Mohammad was a man of mercy. The reason I sat here for hours on end is a simple one. Indonesia is a wonderful country, it is a country populated in the great majority by men and women of moderate beliefs and who are truly accepting of difference.

My dilemma was, do I write another piece slamming the ineptitude and spin-doctoring that the government perpetuates in order to make the victims of heinous crimes the guilty parties while the perpetrators of the crimes are given a free pass, presumably to paradise.

However, that has passed. The reality for me is that half of my family is Indonesian. My son is Indonesian. So, in all ways that I can figure I have a vested interest in seeing Indonesia become a nation where the state motto of unity in diversity is not just a motto but rather a creed that all Indonesians believe in and are prepared to practice. A creed that sees those that violate the tenets of the concept of unity in diversity punished, and punished severely.

Indonesia is at a crossroads. These are crossroads that require resolute leadership. The question is whether vested interests will allow for the unitary state that is the Republic of Indonesia to prevail in the image that it has been envisaged to be over the best parts of the 20th and 21st Centuries. The choice that faces Indonesia is one of truly accepting the unity in diversity principle or an increasingly rapid descent into fracture and, for want of a better word, "Balkanization" and ethnic cleansing as warring factions struggle to establish supremacy over their parts of what was once Indonesia.

The choice is a stark one for SBY and his minions if he is indeed to be the leader that so many had hoped he would be. But, perhaps, an even starker reality for SBY is that critical mass will have to come for the vast majority of Indonesians who profess to being moderate and tolerant. This critical mass will say "enough is enough", this is not what we signed up for, we are a peace-loving people who just want to go on about our lives and business free from persecution and fear.

That day is coming!

If your interested in what triggered this particular musing...

here, here, and here.

Just as an aside, I am wondering how President Obama feels now after having been so pronounced in his praise of Indonesia's religious tolerance being an example to the whole world?

Ho hum...

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...

Can Women Be Leaders?

I actually read the genesis of what I am about to post in The Jakarta Globe. What I had intended to say was way more confrontational and self-righteous than what follows here. It is so because I forced myself to stand up and walk away. I made a sandwich and drank a glass of juice. This was probably a good thing.

I consider myself a tolerant person, although sometimes I have to wonder, but there are some things that really press my buttons. One of them is the idea that women cannot lead and that this is justified in Islam. There are more than enough examples of poor male leaders throughout history that should make us pause and wonder whether men have any inherent right to call themselves the chosen ones, the leaders of men and women.

Yet, Ridwan Muhammad, Speaker of the Local Biruen Government in Aceh, has been lobbying for the need to change the female Head of the Plimbang Subdistrict, Anisah. To all intents and purposes it is politics as normal for any where in the world; you have those that like the job you are doing and those that think you are woeful. It seems that the woeful ledger is winning out as they have gained the support of Ridwan.

The move to replace Anisah though is not based on her woeful performance per se,but rather because she is a woman. And, at least, as Ridwan sees it, this means under Islam and the brand of Sharia Law (ad I use the term loosely) that Aceh has adopted women are not permitted to lead. Presumably, this is because leading men is not the job of women. Yet, the manner in which Ridwan made his views known by saying that women were "unfit" under the laws of Islam to lead is an affront to all women irrespective of their religion.

So, I wonder, Ridwan, what is it that women are good for in your view? Is it that women exist only to serve the pleasures of men? Is it that a good shellacking in the bedroom to satisfy the needs of men is the intent God had in mind? Is it that women are only good for breeding; the old 'bare foot and pregnant' deal? Are women to be judged solely on their abilities to serve their men, where a woman who can cook, wash, iron and sew gets a higher ranking than one lacking in those essential skills?

I wonder, how does this sort of misogyny and chauvinism support the idea that Islam is about protecting the dignity and rights of women? How is it that the Ridwan alternative is one that promotes tolerance, harmony and acceptance? As an aside, Ridwan, are there no prominent women in the history of Islam that had what might be perceived as leadership roles within the religion or the broader community?

Let's not get too deeply into the religious debate. The point of this post is not to dissect Islam and its views on women, in spite of the issue lending itself to such discussion and debate.

Therefore, just focusing on the legal ramifications in a constitutional sense. Does the special autonomy granted to Aceh allow it to discriminate against women within the perceived framework of the implementation of Sharia Law? My limited understanding of the Indonesian Constitution is that discrimination is not permitted, including discrimination against women.

Maybe this idea that women are inferior to men can become part of the new "Visit Indonesia" tourism campaign?

Religious Tolerance in Indonesia...

The past week has seen the President, SBY, supposedly send a letter to President Obama asking him to prevent a clown pretending to be a pastor somewhere in Florida from going ahead with a plan to burn the Koran. Supposedly, the letter talked about religious tolerance and the need for Obama to show some leadership on this front. This post is not going to be a critique on the pros and cons of burning books, or even more particularly religious tomes, but it will pick up on the religious tolerance theme.

If religious tolerance is such a concern Mr. President, then why do you remain silent when your citizens are finding themselves victimised and the victims of violent attacks because they follow a minority faith in your country?

Mr. President, if you are a real leader of men and women, then why is it that you cannot ensure that the constitutional rights your people have to practice their faith is not only enforced but protected from those who seek to create an Islamic state?

Mr. President, religious tolerance is a two-way street. You cannot have your cake and eat it too! If you want to talk the talk, then perhaps it is time to walk the walk. I wonder, if President Obama was to send you a letter asking you to be more pro-active in promoting religious tolerance in Indonesia, maybe even specifically President Obama may mention a Batak Christian congregation being hounded and victimised in Bekasi, would you do it? Would you take a principled stand and enforce the Constitution and the prevailing laws to ensure that these fellow human beings of the Christian faith were protected from those seeking to do them harm?

The truth be told, religious tolerance in Indonesia is quite often nothing more than an intellectual academic debate among elites...those at the coal-face see every single day the ugly side of religious intolerance. It is time, Mr. President, to practice what you preach.

Ho hum...

Ramadan -- A Time of Peace, Harmony, and a Little Reflection...

There must be something in the water or air out Lombok way this Ramadan. It seems that foreigners and the local populace cannot find any common ground upon which to co-exist peacefully.

The latest incident saw another expat home trashed. Stephen Alexander, a German, complained to the local Village Head of Lembah Sari that someone had destroyed his garden statues (presumably they were not gnomes).

His manner of complaint, and a suggestion that the local Muslim populace were poor imitations of good Muslims inspired the local Muslim populace to show him how good they were, and they trashed his house.

One has to wonder whether the matter of principle here was really worth the ultimate outcome? A few statues for a whole house, hmmmm? The statues allegedly resembled Hindu figures and Alexander had been asked to remove them. The Jakarta Globe is reporting that Alexander is a Muslim. Maybe he now wishes that he had just moved them into the backyard or out of plain view.

I am all for a little peaceful co-existence, some harmony, and a little reflection. However, all of these things seem to be premised on a little bit of tolerance. Expats have to understand there are ways and means in Indonesian society where you can express your displeasure and get results in your favour. And, there are ways and means that will only enrage and facilitate a response that will only serve to escalate any tensions present. That said, Indonesians also need to develop a little bit thicker skin and appreciate that no matter how long the expat lives in Indonesia that sometimes the expats just cannot help but to revert to what they know or who they are.

When it is all said and done, jumping up and down on the spot and yelling is not likely to see the outcome you want eventuate. Alexander has learned this the hard way.

The moral of the story here...tolerance. We all need to learn a little bit of it. Surely among adults this is a dispute that could have been resolved without insulting the local populace or the trashing of someone's house.

Ho hum...

Provocatively Dressed Women and Rape...

It was with some interest that I read a story in The Jakarta Globe about the Head of West Aceh, Ramli Mansur. It seems that the Head of West Aceh has decided that scantily or provocatively dressed women are responsible for their own rape if they go out in public dressed inappropriately. I think more specifically, he said that these women were "asking to be raped!"

If you are shaking your head, then I do not blame you. I always shake my head when I hear this line of argument from anyone. It is an argument I have heard before in Australia. In fact, way back in 2006 an Imam based in Sydney during his Friday prayer sermon stated in unequivocal terms that women who wore make up, dressed provocatively, and went out in public were the equivalent of uncovered meat. Sheik Taj Din al-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."


"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

As I said, been there and heard that!

The Sheik was born in Egypt and, the last I heard, he still calls Australia home.

Why is it that blokes making statements like Mansur and Hilali look like they have been hit by a bus? Let's face it, there is not a stud muffin amongst them! Some of these fellas would be lucky to get laid even if they offered to pay for it!

Back to Mansur and West Aceh. It is understandable that reaction to the misogynist opinions of a backward thinking, backward looking relic of ancient Islamic history has been roundly ridiculed in the Blogosphere, Twittersphere, Facebook, and other social networking places. It is high time that some of these people came and joined the rest of us in the modern world.

It is also high time that people, usually men, stopped making excuses for the bad (and criminal behaviour) of other men. There is nothing right or mitigating in circumstances where a man rapes a woman because she is not wearing the hijab or a burqa or she desires to leave her home and head out in public. Wearing a short skirt does not equate to wearing a sign around one's neck saying "hey, feel free to rape me because I am wearing a short skirt".

Respect and tolerance are not things to be enjoyed by, and among, men. Respect and tolerance extend to all, not just when you feel like it, but at all times. These are not Western values, these are human values.

These men make me want to puke!

(If you have not been able to tell yet from the tone of this rant, I have no time for fools like this!)

Is SBY Fit to be President of Indonesia?

This is a short post. It is not a analysis. It is a question!

The president is supposed to declare a commitment to upholding the provisions of the Constitution. The president is supposed to acknowledge that the Republic of Indonesia respects the tenets of Pancasila as the state ideology. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is clearly failing to do this.

The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees religious freedom. In simple terms, Indonesia is a secular state.

A statement from the president encouraging tolerance is not commensurate with his responsibility in upholding and defending the Constitution. He must make specific reference to the recent attacks on Christians practicing their faith in Bekasi. He must publicly rebuke the Islamic Defenders' Front (FPI) and any others that violate the basic tenets of the Constitution.

Finally, the president must take responsibility for the governance of the Republic. If he is not up to that task then he should step aside and let someone willing to fight for freedom and democracy have an opportunity to ensure that all Indonesians enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to them!

Indonesia is for all Indonesians, and not just a lucky few.

Mr. President, do you have the courage to step up and do what you were elected to do?

Shame, shame, shame!

Islamic Defenders Front -- Giving Islam a Bad Name...

Now, I am not usually one for the conspiracy theories. However, I often wonder how an organisation like the Front Pembela Islam or the Islamic Defenders Front can be so naive with the manner that they go about promoting their brand of radical violent Islam gives rise to serious questions about who they act for. It sometimes reaches a point where one has to wonder whether there is a conspiracy at play here. One where particular interests are using the highly gullible and easily influenced in order to give Islam a bad name. And, let's face it the FPI gives Islam a bad name.

The FPI and their most recent cause saw them storming a hotel in Depok, West Java, to disband a transsexual lingerie contest. Unfortunately, the FPI had been had. It was not a lingerie contest but rather a seminar on human rights. A seminar that in fact was teaching Indonesia transsexual and transgender individuals about their human rights. There was not a lingerie-clad transsexual in sight (probably much to the disappointment of the FPI thugs in attendance).

The seminar itself was supported by the Indonesian National Commission for Human Rights and had the requisite approval to proceed. This approval was granted by the Indonesian police force among others. Unfortunately, it seems no one bothered to get the approval of the local chapter of the FPI. The failure to get the FPI's approval is seemingly a sin against Allah and undoubtedly against Allah's Prophet, Muhammad.

The perversely funny thing here is that by raiding the seminar the FPI has given the Indonesian transsexual and transgender community a profile it might not have had, particularly if they had been left alone to go about their business of attending a seminar on human rights. So, one has to wonder about the agenda of the FPI here. If the FPI is really all about ridding Indonesia  of such "perversion" then why bother helping promote acknowledgement, and perhaps acceptance, of the fact that there are different parts to the broader Indonesian community. In my mind, it is the FPI that is the perversion and needs to be shut down and not my brothers and sisters in the transsexual and transgender community that are pursuing their right to learn about their human rights in an approved forum.

Alternatively, the FPI could show that they have learned a little but about tolerance and accepting difference (my guess is that the FPI will never come to appreciate difference) then they can continue to exist. However, if their continued course is one of violence and intolerance then they must be punished to the full extent of the law and shut down. Any failure to punish the FPI and to shut them down which allows them to continually and unashamedly break the law and violate other individuals human rights begs the question as to why the police and the Indonesian government tolerate them. One would seemingly have to ask: "does the government and do the police approve of the FPI actions?" Should silence and failure to act be construed as support for the FPI agenda?

Ultimately, respect is a two-way street. If you want to be respected then you must respect others. In very simple terms, respect is earned. FPI has not earned respect and is undeserving of respect because of its repeated failures to respect others.

Hypocrisy?

Courtesy of Creepy. You can find him here.

Combating the Defamation of Religion

The UN General Assembly will soon vote on a non-binding resolution that restricts speech that offends religion and in particular offends Islam. Originally, the resolution was introduced by Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference via the Human Rights Council in 1999. The resolution only referred to Islam but was amended to include other religions in order that it pass and it has passed the Human Rights Council every year since 1999.

Having successfully negotiated the Human Rights Council, Yemen was sufficiently emboldened to introduce it to the General Assembly in 2005. The General Assembly will now have to vote on Resolution 62/145. Interestingly, the reason for the resolution is that there has been a campaign of defamation of religions and to address the issues of religious and ethnic profiling in the post September 11 world.

The resolution, if passed, will significantly impact upon free speech everywhere. This is in spite of the resolution being non-binding. The threat is significant enough that the US felt the need to make a submission to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The US statement simply noted that defamation related laws have been regularly abused by governments in order to restrict the freedom of speech and other human rights.

The resolution is being colloquially referred to as the blasphemy resolution. A quick survey of the recent news on this paints a picture of the likely effect that the passage of this resolution might have of it were to be applied uniformly throughout member states.

Although it is more likely a boon for those governments that head up non-democratic states as a blasphemy resolution could certainly be used to stifle debate. In nations with a much longer, albeit not perfect democratic tradition, there are generally protections for the freedom of speech in place. In some countries like the US this protection is enshrined in the Constitution.

For example:

* Random House's decision not to publish a book, The Jewel of Medina, that used as a plot base the marriage of Aisha and Muhammad because it was deemed to be offensive to Muslims;
* A British teacher working in Sudan was sentenced to 15 days in jail because she allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad;
* An Egyptian blogger that was sentenced to four years jail for a critique of Islam; and
* The murder of Theo van Gogh who released a film on the abuse of Muslim women.

It needs to be pointed out that this is an issue that has its roots in a much more distant past. In times prior to the thought that the UN might pass a resolution on this, Islamic countries took care of business themselves and issued fatwas such as the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for the Satanic Verses.

In many ways this is a resolution about creating a world full of fear and intimidation where people cannot speak their minds without fear of running afoul of a resolution such as this one. If anything it is going to increase the tension and stress on the pursuit of religious harmony, perhaps so much so that minority religions in majority Muslim countries will be victimized based on perceived slights.

What I wonder about is how you defame a religion. A religion is an idea or a set of ideas. Is it possible for an idea to have rights?

I am an advocate of free speech and the open and frank discussion and exchange of ideas. This resolution bothers me because it seems designed to provide the framework for the establishment for religious intolerance. Peace and tolerance go hand-in-hand but peace and intolerance do not.

Here's hoping that the resolution does not get the numbers to pass.

Jewel of Medina

It seems that a Serbian Publisher, BeoBook, is going to start publishing again the book by Sherry Jones, Jewel of Medina. BeoBook started publishing the book in August, but like Random House folded to pressure that the book was anti-Islam and offensive because it slighted Muhammad.

As keen as I am to read the book, I am not going to be booking flights to Serbia. I might see if I can track down a BeoBook website and then see if I can order it online.

Of if any of my readers are going to Serbia and can pick up a copy let me know.

Random House and A'isha -- Muslim Opposition

It seems that Random House could not stand the heat in the kitchen and has bailed out. Random House was set to publish a historical fiction novel by Sherry Jones, this would have been her first novel, quite an event for an aspiring author. However, the subject matter of this piece of historical fiction was none other that A'isha, the child bride of the Prophet Mohammad.

Random House sent a copy out to selected individuals to gauge feedback. This feedback included on recipient lobbying Muslim websites and warning them of the books imminent publishing date. Random House fearing a backlash similar to the Satanic Verses or the more recent violence associated with the publication of some cartoons of the Prophet, has decided that it is no longer willing to publish the novel (some of the quotes in this piece are sourced from here).

The Jewel of Medina, focuses on the life of A'isha, one of the Prophet's wives. The historical record seems to suggest that when the Prophet married A'isha she was young, some say a mere six years of age. Most Muslims claim that the custom of the time would have meant that the marriage would not have been consummated until A'isha reached puberty. Truth be told, on this we will never really know the truth. But there is something troubling about grown men marrying pre-pubescent girls no matter what the circumstances.

The problem here is that Denise Spellberg, Associate Professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas, declared the book to be a "very ugly, stupid piece of work" that "made fun of Muslims and their history". The rhetoric then escalated to whispers of this work being "a new attempt to slander the Prophet of Islam." Spellberg went on to tell Random House editors that this was a "declaration of war" that would be "far more controversial than The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons". This must be one hell of a debut novel, particularly if it was going to see the author subject to a fatwa condemning her to death and incite the sort of violence we saw with the publishing of the Prophet Mohammad cartoons.

I hope another publisher has the testicular fortitude to pick it up and publish it.

The deputy publisher of Random House, Thomas Perry, in real chicken speak said that Random House had received "from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

It is always interesting to hear and read claims that Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace, yet any mention of the Prophet or his wives in any context is seen as an attack on Islam. In similar circumstances when Dan Brown had his historical fiction novel The Da Vinci Code published there were supporters and critics. Some loved the book, others thought it to be garbage. But, the Christian clergy of whatever stripe did not organize the masses to go out an boycott products or march on the publisher and burn it down, or issue a religious edict condemning the author to death. Perhaps the best way to approach any book is to read it first and then make reasoned arguments against it if you disagree with its substance. Yet, when it is all said and done the book is a work of fiction.

I unfortunately was not one of the lucky ones that saw an advance proof of the Jewel of Medina so I do not know whether the response by Random House is proportional to the offence the book may contain. More to the point, even if the book offends some Muslims, it is hardly likely to be the flashpoint that results in the implosion of Islam.

Yet, in any event, my question is, "whatever happened to free speech?"

Race Politics -- Personal Musings

I have been having one of those mornings where I have not been able to sleep. In order to avoid doing work, I surf the Internet. I have been reading a little about race politics, playing the race card, and whether the US is a post-race nation. This got me thinking, probably no surprise to those that know me best, about how this debate would play out in Indonesia.

The Indonesian Constitution of 1945 would seem to support an argument that any Indonesian citizen born in this country, Indonesia, has a right to become its president. The Indonesian term is "orang asli" which loosely would translation to original person, and herein lies the problem. Does the term refer exclusively to indigenous Indonesians or does it also include the important and vibrant communities that trace their respective ancestries through to China, India, and the lands of the Middle East? Even more interestingly is does it include Indonesians who trace their ancestries to European roots who were born and raised in Indonesia from birth?

There has traditionally been a feeling that the highest office in the land was only opened to pribumi or indigenous Indonesians. My problem with this is that Indonesia is a socio-political construct and as such who is indigenous in this sense? Some have even gone as far as to say that one must be Javanese to gain the highest office. Unfortunately, for those that believe this, Soeharto chose one B.J. Habibie to be his Vice President. When Soeharto stepped down and Habibie became President these arguments were no longer valid. Habibie was was not Javanese.

The point of posting is not to write a 50-page tome on the merits or lack thereof of race-based politics. I can publish that research in a journal if it is good enough! Rather my intent here is in light of recent violence between religious followers and between ethnicities within Indonesia, perhaps an evaluation of race relations and politics is warranted.

I feel that Indonesia must sooner or later stand up and stare down those who flame the tensions simmering within Indonesian communities. This stand has to be one for tolerance, acceptance, and unity.

Many will argue that Indonesia is about being diverse but unified (or as some claim fragmented but one) yet this is hardly played out in real life. There must be a time where Indonesians identify not as pribumi and non-pribumi, or as Arab Indonesians, or Indian Indonesians, or Chinese Indonesians, but rather as "Indonesians". Maybe there is a need to return to a more literal understanding of the ideology of Pancasila (Five Principles).

After more than 60 years of independence Indonesia is still squabbling about race, about religion, and about tolerance! The founding fathers and mothers of this nation are undoubtedly rolling in their graves!

Fitna

The blogosphere and just about everywhere else it seems is running stories or making comments about Geert Wilders' film "Fitna". The man has to be loving it because my guess if nothing else he is a little narcissistic and enjoying the attention.

Probably more import for the man is that it gets people talking about his message. The message might be from the far right and anti-immigration in nature but it plays to peoples general feelings of mistrust of those things that are different and that they do not understand. The intolerance of people is a rich vein that is often mined by politicians. For many Australians this is the same vein of fear that Pauline Hanson played to in her, at the time, "surprise" election to the Australian parliament.

I must admit that I have not watched Fitna and can only comment on what is filtering through what I read. If I want to watch it I will have to be fast if I want to watch it on youtube as Indonesia has informed youtube that it will be shutting down access to it if it does not remove Wilders film. The two terms I have most heard used to describe the film is that it is racist and misleading.

The misleading part I understand. Film making is a little bit like statistics in that you can put things together in a certain way to paint any picture you want. Now, my understanding is that Fitna cuts and pastes actual footage of previous terrorist acts and inserts a few selected Suras from the Al-Qu'ran and points to his view that Islam is bad and so are Muslims and presumably this is reason enough to be concerned about a Muslim's motivations of wanting to come to Holland. The film must be put into the context of Wilders own personal existence; that is he has been elected to the Dutch parliament on an anti-immigration platform and this film is his characterization as to why Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate.

The racist angle I have a little more trouble with in terms of the film, particularly if it is targeting Muslims in a general sense. Islam is not in the sense of the UN definition of the term

"racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Perhaps the apt term here is not racist, Wilders' himself may be a racist (but this is an argument and post for a different time), but the question that needs to be asked of this film is whether or not it vilifies a particular religion. If the answer is yes then the next logical question is how should this be dealt with.

Fitna would seem to be a film with an agenda and if it is as some have suggested a compilation of events that have occurred combined with a selective number of Suras from the Al-Qu’ran then I would imagine that Muslim scholars could conceivably respond in a manner that points out the problems or where the film misleads without having to resort to violence.


The idea of free speech is not one where there are no boundaries and to suggest that free speech is simply a matter of anything goes is a misrepresentation in itself. Whether Fitna falls into a protected category of free speech is a legal debate. Yet, just because the material offends does not mean that it is speech that must be censored or banned. If it is speech that vilifies a particular individual or group then there are likely to be restrictions on the speech, and rightly so.


It is unfortunate that rational debate is likely to be overshadowed by the emotional one because a rational debate might just lead us down a path that will take us to a place where there is a greater appreciation and understanding of the differences that separate us. Finding this tolerance is the key to making the world in which we live a much happier one.


Violence only begets more violence. As Gandhi once said “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!”


I have said this many times but it is worth repeating and that is this...we cannot afford to bury our collective heads in the sand and pretend that these issues are not here and confronting us now. Blokes like Wilders need to be met head on and engaged in constructive debate because to just marginalize him and push him to the side is not addressing the fundamental message of hate that he promotes. Simply, ignoring something does not mean it has ceased to exist!

Ridicule if you want, but it is our communal hopes and dreams for a better future that will drive us to a more tolerant and peaceful future.

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 :)