| MUslim Hate In Australia
By Finder 18/06/2005 At 03:58 Prior to 06-06-2005 Jim Ball was denying the existence of abuse and desecration of Quran by the US forces and the same time he was injecting his never ending anti-Muslim, anti-Arab slurs and slanders. However at about 12.15 am of 06-06-2005 Jim Ball turned around and found valid reasons and grounds for the desecration and abuse of Quran.
My Open Letter Ms. Marian Vincent Chief Operating Officer Radio 2GB Dear Ms. Vincent Further to my communication with Mr. Alan Jones, the following will provide you a much clearer picture of radio 2GB's shock jocks ultimate desire and intention: to incite hate against Islam and Muslim communities in Australia. On 15/05/2005 before the 10.00 pm news a 2GB contributor rang up Reverend Bill Cruise and spoke to him about the blatant anti-Muslim nature of night time presenter Jim Ball. During that discussion Ball did not deny such belligerent practice. Yet, I am surprised by 2GB management's blindness about it. On 02-06-2005 after 1.00 am or 2.00 am news Jim Ball played Andrew Bolt interview of Alan Jones and converted the whole night as on open season for attacking Islam and Muslims. Such an open season is not new for him albeit sad and tragic for us. Prior to 06-06-2005 Jim Ball was denying the existence of abuse and desecration of Quran by the US forces and the same time he was injecting his never ending anti-Muslim, anti-Arab slurs and slanders. However at about 12.15 am of 06-06-2005 Jim Ball turned around and found valid reasons and grounds for the desecration and abuse of Quran. Beside the manifestly more evidence that I have provided to you with before, I wonder why radio 2GB is so determined to inject anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic venom day in day out. Mischievously and ironically your station is simultaneously, vehemently campaigning against the proposed Religious Vilification Law. What folly- to what good purpose? Sincerely Yours Faruque Ahmed 18th June 2005 Dear Alan, I am for free speech but against promotion of prejudice and bigotry; thereby inciting violence against any section of the community due to their sex, race or religion. I believe in freedom of expression but against manufacturing consent and opinion which is the norm of radio 2GB. Beside my email below, I am in a position to provide you with 100s of examples to prove that your radio station and some of it's cruel shockjocks have been sucking the Israeli boot as if it were religion while insulting Muslims, Islam, migrants, Aboriginal, Arabs etc. without any valid reason whatsoever. The team behaviour of your lot make Julius Striker and Joseph Goebels merely boy scouts and Hitler like a holy man. Most importantly, these shock jocks are hiding behind four walls and telephonists as they don't have a stomach and mentality to debate the issue. I challenge you to replay the full segment of the above mentioned Bolt/Ball interview in all it's religious and racial vilification. Trust me Alan- drop your support for the futile and absolutely illogical opposition to the proposed Religious Vilification Legislation. Surely, we need such a legislation to seek protection from your collegue¹s stripe. By the way, your incorrect, inappropriate and patronising comment regarding terrorism does not attract any answer due to a genuine fear of credibility to such a twist. With thanks Faruque Ahmed 18th June 2005 From: "taxirevolution" Date: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:54 am Subject: highest paid shock jock in this country! Do you like to suggest me on how could I reply his pathetic response as I am going to take legal action against him soon. Mind you he is the highest paid shock jock in this country! Tue, 7 June 2005 12:24:06 +1000 From: "Alan Jones"  alanjones@2gb.com To: taxirevolution@yahoo.com.au Dear Faruque, I'm in receipt of your extraordinary email. However, if you wanted to read something which was ill-motivated, hypocritical, hateful then just circulate copies of your misstated and inaccurate communication. It doesn't really merit any kind of > sensible response. But whether you like it or not, Faruque, not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims. And until responsible Muslims deal with the militants, you can expect Australians to feel a sense of outrage. And no protestation from you is going to be able to demolish that concern. But if you keep your head in the sand, Faruque, it will eventually block out your eardrums. With best wishes, Alan Jones AO -----Original Message----- From: taxi revolution [mailto: taxirevolution@yahoo.com.au] Sent: Friday, 3 June 2005 2:46 PM To: Natasha stott; Nurdin Aceh; Peter Andren; phil adams; pier ackerman; Ruposi Bangla; + Subject: 2GB Hate Merchant Alan Jones Mr. Alan Jones, Your ill-motivated and hypocritical interview with Andrew Bolt (Wednesday 1st of June 2205) appeared to me as a cruel and cunning Muslim bashing under the guise of 'free speech'. In reality, you and your radio station does not have any respect for free speech. You do not provide a right of reply to your victims. Historically, you and your radio station were wrong many many times and found guilty of many offences in several occasions. This occasion I am not going to comment about that 'hate merchant' Daniel Scott. I will rather explain to you (by way of example) why we need the long over due Religious Vilification Law in this state. 1. A few years ago, a non-Muslim person (possibly Jew, Zionist, agnostic etc.) took legal action to stop Christmas Carols from the state schools. Yet your station remained deafeningly silent (by contrast- if it had been say a Muslim playing the pedant) this particular time. In fact if I remember rightly the shock jocks of Sydney have twisted this incident as ammunition to attack Muslims - as if a Muslim had been the original pedant. 0h well you guys can't be to blamed for the five second memories of your audience I guess! 2. Shortly after that incident, another non-Muslim fellow (possibly Jew, Zionist, agnostic etc.) removed or relocated Bibles from his Stamford hotel chain. Again, 2GB hate merchants and their 'little ones' declared 'crusade' against Muslims and Arabs. 3. Have you ever stood up against Israeli war crimes, genocide's and other atrocities? Have you ever insulted the "Jewish" religion or people the way you lot insult Islam and Muslims, migrants, Aboriginal? Certainly not! Therefore the society badly needs Proposed Religious Vilification law in order to seek protection from radio 2GB and people like you. Thank you in advance. Disgustingly Yours Faruque Ahmed 3rd of June 2005 Source: Sydney “Secret” Politics Society  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeamericanow/message/21418 http://adelaide.indymedia.org/newswire/display/8467/index.php >>Add a comment
Macqarie Radio Network Spreads Terrorism At The Airwaves
Macqarie Radio Network has been injecting filth and bigotry for a long time. This network’s deliberate filth incites violence against migrants, Aboriginals, Arabs, Muslims and many other minority groups.
Macqarie Radio Network is not familiar with right of reply! This radio station is a shame for Australia.
 |
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:16:02 p.m. Addressing Racism --------------------------------------------------------------------- Anti-Racism Forum, University of Sydney Wednesday 4 September 2002 by Chris Puplick, President, New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board, September 1994 - May 2003 Recently you may have read in the Daily Telegraph about a gym in Lakemba that was granted an exemption to operate for women only. This gym is owned and operated by a Muslim woman, and her idea was to open a gym that was culturally sensitive to the needs of other Muslim women. That meant that there was a prayer room, that the music was appropriate, that the women were able to exercise without feeling that their modesty was jeopardised. In all, it was a fairly sound business proposition, although that aspect was of no concern to the Board. What concerned us was whether such an establishment would meet the special needs of a disadvantaged group. Given that there are five hundred gyms in NSW that do not meet the needs of Muslim women, and that this one would meet the needs of a group of women with serious health considerations, we were able to recommend to the Attorney General that an exemption be granted. Exemptions, in our neck of the woods, are no big deal. You can check our website and see that we have granted many exemptions to different kinds of groups. Our concern - regardless of what the Daily Telegraph will have you believe - is that by granting the exemption, people who are being treated unequally, or who cannot enjoy facilities and services the rest of us take for granted, will move one step closer to the level playing field that all human rights advocates dream about. The Board has recommended exemptions for a diverse range of groups – health services for older men, employment agencies that specialise in recruitment for people over forty, refuges where female victims of domestic violence prefer to be counselled by female staff – all of these services are operating as I speak, exempt from the Anti-Discrimination Act. Would the Telegraph have been as interested if the gym operated only for older men? No, I don’t think so either. What all of this illustrates of course is the ease with which the real issues - in this case the promotion of equality - can be hijacked by a debate about racism and how those who cannot attack people when the issue is one of seeking equality can attack them when the issue is perverted into one of race. We have seen this most spectacularly over a long period of time when it comes to the reporting of crime, and the recent work by Scott Poynting and others has alerted us to the racialisation of crime as a major threat to community harmony in this State at the moment. Obviously the most recent manifestation of this has been in relation to the horrific rape trials that have been in the news almost every day. There is no doubt that issues of race were involved in these incidents, but what has been obscured is the fact that rape is always a gender issue and that attempting to portray it as exclusively a racial issue is a gross distortion. Rapists always blame their victims for something and always deny the profound misogyny, disrespect for all women and power tripping that is involved in their inexcusable crimes. Just as distorting is to try to hold a entire community responsible for the criminal behaviour. Again, there is nothing new about this - it is altogether too familiarly depressing. In the 1930’s the Sydney press associated all crime with the Jewish community; in the 1960’s all crime was “Mafia” and hence Italian-related; in the 1970’s all crime was drug related and hence the responsibility of the Vietnamese community. Now it appears all violence and crime is associated with the Arabic community. Tomorrow it will be someone else. This is not simply a manifestation of some temporary aberration in the public discourse, it is symptomatic of a deep seated racism in which those who commit crime must be different and the most obvious form of difference is race. The truth of course is that most crime is committed by people who are not from any of these “exotic” ethnic backgrounds - it is committed by the Anglo-Saxon-Irish majority : and always has been. The level of ignorance and fear that is manifested as racism towards the Arabic and Islamic communities at the moment is particularly frightening. The double standard that is used by the media and that is regurgitated by the people who read or listen to or watch media, raises the very pertinent question - why is this happening? Why now, and why Muslims or the wider Arabic community? These communities have borne the brunt of successive waves of opprobrium: the debate about “boat people”, asylum seekers and “queue jumpers” the debate about the Tampa and “throwing children overboard” the debate about the quagmire of tragedy in Palestine and the Middle East the debate about the last war and the next war on Iraq the debate about ethnic crime - “Lebanese gangs” and “Muslim rapists” the debate about shar’ia punishments ordered in Nigeria or Pakistan the debate about responsibility for 11 September. So in this hostile backbiting argument, we see the Lords of the Media Dance holding the Australian Muslim community as answerable for the actions for Muslims world wide. Alan Jones derides the Muslim community for not commenting on the stoning of a woman in Nigeria. This stoning may take place in a remote area having nothing to do with Australia, under laws which are allegedly “Islamic” but not in any way sanctioned by the Koran and being applied contrary to the policies of the Nigerian Government which has indicated its disapproval of them. Yet, I have never heard Mr Jones demand that Sydney’s American community come forth to protest the death penalty whenever it is applied in the United States. Nobody here demands an explanation from Sydney’s Thai or Malay communities when a drug trafficker is executed in Bangkok or Kuala Lumper; or berates the Singaporean community when some kid is flogged for vandalism. No member of the Irish community in New South Wales was ever held responsible for the thirty years of violence and killing in Belfast or Londonderry. And it is not just here in New South Wales. In France, similar cases of pack rapes have caused antagonistic debates. In Denmark and the Netherlands, there is national discussion, led by the media and government, about the status and legitimacy of Muslim migrants who, allegedly, refuse to assimilate. There is a major debate under way in the United Kingdom at present about these same issues compounded by recent experience of race riots in some British cities. None of these debates is in any way civilised and all contain within them gross elements of ingrained assumptions about race and unfair stereotyping of whole populations. Why do we demand an explanation and apology from all Muslims for the actions of so few? Why has the so-called war on terrorism been intrinsically linked with a war on Islam? Complaints about racial vilification to the Anti-Discrimination Board have increased over the last year. These complaints are both verbal and physical abuse, and sadly, Muslim women who choose to wear the scarf are obvious targets. As horrendous as this is, is it really surprising, given the level of hostility towards Muslims in the media on an almost daily basis? Under the Anti-Discrimination Act, it is of course unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of their race. It is also unlawful to incite hatred through a public act against a person or persons on the basis of their race. Making a complaint is not difficult, but – like all legal actions– it is a detailed and sometimes lengthy procedure. The first step is usually a phone call to the Board. An Advisory Officer will discuss your complaint with you, and if your complaint appears to be covered by the Act, you will be advised about the process for making a formal complaint. This makes you the complainant. When that complaint is received, we will investigate it. If it appears to be covered by the Act we contact the person about whom the complaint is made, and get their side of the story. They become the respondent. We then arrange to get both of you together, with one of our Conciliation Officers, and the complaint is discussed. Pleasingly, often complaints are sorted out at this stage. But occasionally neither party can agree on an outcome. In these instances, the case is then referred to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a formal hearing. Effective Human Rights legislation is one the great blessings of a democratic society. However, the Anti-Discrimination Act has it flaws, and in the current climate one of these flaws has become a sticking point for the Muslim community. The definition of ethno–religion as stated in the Act is proving to be a thorn in our side. Unlike all other States and Territories, except South Australia, it is not unlawful in NSW to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion. You cannot, however, discriminate against someone on the basis of their so-called “ethno-religion.” This has caused a few problems. At the moment the case of Khan vs Corrective Services is still bouncing around before the courts because it cannot be decided whether Mr Khan, who is Muslim, is the victim of discrimination when the Junee Prison refused to serve him halal food. This is based on the Tribunal’s failure to properly decipher exactly what ethno-religion means - and little wonder since none of us really knows and since the term is unique in law. It was introduced as a compromise when the previous Wran Labor Government buckled under pressure from the mainstream Christian Churches and went back on its promise to outlaw religious discrimination in NSW. It does include Jews and Sikhs, but it is still unclear whether it includes Muslims. The Act does not allow complaints to be initiated by the President. Again, this is unlike most other jurisdictions and is something which was criticised by the Law Reform Commission in their recent review of our Act. So, when I hear countless stories of race discrimination and vilification, I am powerless to help, because I cannot make a complaint on behalf of the vilified party. If they are too poor, too afraid or too disempowered to act on their own behalf, the law prevents me from assisting them and the State Government refuses to address this problem despite numerous requests and recommendations over many years. Of course at the end of the day, racism (like any of the other great social evils of our society), needs to be combated by a combination of education and leadership. Education should come from a variety of sources: our schools and universities, human rights advocates, ethnic and community groups themselves and an informed media. The extent to which racism flourishes is a sad indictment on the failures of so many of these players to discharge their moral and social responsibilities. Leadership similarly comes from many quarters, from our public intellectuals, from our community role models and from our politicians. We should perhaps be asking what sins and crimes we have committed as a community and a nation that we are inflicted and cursed with so many of these people who have failed us so badly in our hour or need. Source: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adb.nsf/85b15a3388df13624a2565c6001633d9/9fd08d37dcaed9cfca256c37000500ef?OpenDocument
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:16:02 p.m. Addressing Racism --------------------------------------------------------------------- Anti-Racism Forum, University of Sydney Wednesday 4 September 2002 by Chris Puplick, President, New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board, September 1994 - May 2003 Recently you may have read in the Daily Telegraph about a gym in Lakemba that was granted an exemption to operate for women only. This gym is owned and operated by a Muslim woman, and her idea was to open a gym that was culturally sensitive to the needs of other Muslim women. That meant that there was a prayer room, that the music was appropriate, that the women were able to exercise without feeling that their modesty was jeopardised. In all, it was a fairly sound business proposition, although that aspect was of no concern to the Board. What concerned us was whether such an establishment would meet the special needs of a disadvantaged group. Given that there are five hundred gyms in NSW that do not meet the needs of Muslim women, and that this one would meet the needs of a group of women with serious health considerations, we were able to recommend to the Attorney General that an exemption be granted. Exemptions, in our neck of the woods, are no big deal. You can check our website and see that we have granted many exemptions to different kinds of groups. Our concern - regardless of what the Daily Telegraph will have you believe - is that by granting the exemption, people who are being treated unequally, or who cannot enjoy facilities and services the rest of us take for granted, will move one step closer to the level playing field that all human rights advocates dream about. The Board has recommended exemptions for a diverse range of groups – health services for older men, employment agencies that specialise in recruitment for people over forty, refuges where female victims of domestic violence prefer to be counselled by female staff – all of these services are operating as I speak, exempt from the Anti-Discrimination Act. Would the Telegraph have been as interested if the gym operated only for older men? No, I don’t think so either. What all of this illustrates of course is the ease with which the real issues - in this case the promotion of equality - can be hijacked by a debate about racism and how those who cannot attack people when the issue is one of seeking equality can attack them when the issue is perverted into one of race. We have seen this most spectacularly over a long period of time when it comes to the reporting of crime, and the recent work by Scott Poynting and others has alerted us to the racialisation of crime as a major threat to community harmony in this State at the moment. Obviously the most recent manifestation of this has been in relation to the horrific rape trials that have been in the news almost every day. There is no doubt that issues of race were involved in these incidents, but what has been obscured is the fact that rape is always a gender issue and that attempting to portray it as exclusively a racial issue is a gross distortion. Rapists always blame their victims for something and always deny the profound misogyny, disrespect for all women and power tripping that is involved in their inexcusable crimes. Just as distorting is to try to hold a entire community responsible for the criminal behaviour. Again, there is nothing new about this - it is altogether too familiarly depressing. In the 1930’s the Sydney press associated all crime with the Jewish community; in the 1960’s all crime was “Mafia” and hence Italian-related; in the 1970’s all crime was drug related and hence the responsibility of the Vietnamese community. Now it appears all violence and crime is associated with the Arabic community. Tomorrow it will be someone else. This is not simply a manifestation of some temporary aberration in the public discourse, it is symptomatic of a deep seated racism in which those who commit crime must be different and the most obvious form of difference is race. The truth of course is that most crime is committed by people who are not from any of these “exotic” ethnic backgrounds - it is committed by the Anglo-Saxon-Irish majority : and always has been. The level of ignorance and fear that is manifested as racism towards the Arabic and Islamic communities at the moment is particularly frightening. The double standard that is used by the media and that is regurgitated by the people who read or listen to or watch media, raises the very pertinent question - why is this happening? Why now, and why Muslims or the wider Arabic community? These communities have borne the brunt of successive waves of opprobrium: the debate about “boat people”, asylum seekers and “queue jumpers” the debate about the Tampa and “throwing children overboard” the debate about the quagmire of tragedy in Palestine and the Middle East the debate about the last war and the next war on Iraq the debate about ethnic crime - “Lebanese gangs” and “Muslim rapists” the debate about shar’ia punishments ordered in Nigeria or Pakistan the debate about responsibility for 11 September. So in this hostile backbiting argument, we see the Lords of the Media Dance holding the Australian Muslim community as answerable for the actions for Muslims world wide. Alan Jones derides the Muslim community for not commenting on the stoning of a woman in Nigeria. This stoning may take place in a remote area having nothing to do with Australia, under laws which are allegedly “Islamic” but not in any way sanctioned by the Koran and being applied contrary to the policies of the Nigerian Government which has indicated its disapproval of them. Yet, I have never heard Mr Jones demand that Sydney’s American community come forth to protest the death penalty whenever it is applied in the United States. Nobody here demands an explanation from Sydney’s Thai or Malay communities when a drug trafficker is executed in Bangkok or Kuala Lumper; or berates the Singaporean community when some kid is flogged for vandalism. No member of the Irish community in New South Wales was ever held responsible for the thirty years of violence and killing in Belfast or Londonderry. And it is not just here in New South Wales. In France, similar cases of pack rapes have caused antagonistic debates. In Denmark and the Netherlands, there is national discussion, led by the media and government, about the status and legitimacy of Muslim migrants who, allegedly, refuse to assimilate. There is a major debate under way in the United Kingdom at present about these same issues compounded by recent experience of race riots in some British cities. None of these debates is in any way civilised and all contain within them gross elements of ingrained assumptions about race and unfair stereotyping of whole populations. Why do we demand an explanation and apology from all Muslims for the actions of so few? Why has the so-called war on terrorism been intrinsically linked with a war on Islam? Complaints about racial vilification to the Anti-Discrimination Board have increased over the last year. These complaints are both verbal and physical abuse, and sadly, Muslim women who choose to wear the scarf are obvious targets. As horrendous as this is, is it really surprising, given the level of hostility towards Muslims in the media on an almost daily basis? Under the Anti-Discrimination Act, it is of course unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of their race. It is also unlawful to incite hatred through a public act against a person or persons on the basis of their race. Making a complaint is not difficult, but – like all legal actions– it is a detailed and sometimes lengthy procedure. The first step is usually a phone call to the Board. An Advisory Officer will discuss your complaint with you, and if your complaint appears to be covered by the Act, you will be advised about the process for making a formal complaint. This makes you the complainant. When that complaint is received, we will investigate it. If it appears to be covered by the Act we contact the person about whom the complaint is made, and get their side of the story. They become the respondent. We then arrange to get both of you together, with one of our Conciliation Officers, and the complaint is discussed. Pleasingly, often complaints are sorted out at this stage. But occasionally neither party can agree on an outcome. In these instances, the case is then referred to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a formal hearing. Effective Human Rights legislation is one the great blessings of a democratic society. However, the Anti-Discrimination Act has it flaws, and in the current climate one of these flaws has become a sticking point for the Muslim community. The definition of ethno–religion as stated in the Act is proving to be a thorn in our side. Unlike all other States and Territories, except South Australia, it is not unlawful in NSW to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion. You cannot, however, discriminate against someone on the basis of their so-called “ethno-religion.” This has caused a few problems. At the moment the case of Khan vs Corrective Services is still bouncing around before the courts because it cannot be decided whether Mr Khan, who is Muslim, is the victim of discrimination when the Junee Prison refused to serve him halal food. This is based on the Tribunal’s failure to properly decipher exactly what ethno-religion means - and little wonder since none of us really knows and since the term is unique in law. It was introduced as a compromise when the previous Wran Labor Government buckled under pressure from the mainstream Christian Churches and went back on its promise to outlaw religious discrimination in NSW. It does include Jews and Sikhs, but it is still unclear whether it includes Muslims. The Act does not allow complaints to be initiated by the President. Again, this is unlike most other jurisdictions and is something which was criticised by the Law Reform Commission in their recent review of our Act. So, when I hear countless stories of race discrimination and vilification, I am powerless to help, because I cannot make a complaint on behalf of the vilified party. If they are too poor, too afraid or too disempowered to act on their own behalf, the law prevents me from assisting them and the State Government refuses to address this problem despite numerous requests and recommendations over many years. Of course at the end of the day, racism (like any of the other great social evils of our society), needs to be combated by a combination of education and leadership. Education should come from a variety of sources: our schools and universities, human rights advocates, ethnic and community groups themselves and an informed media. The extent to which racism flourishes is a sad indictment on the failures of so many of these players to discharge their moral and social responsibilities. Leadership similarly comes from many quarters, from our public intellectuals, from our community role models and from our politicians. We should perhaps be asking what sins and crimes we have committed as a community and a nation that we are inflicted and cursed with so many of these people who have failed us so badly in our hour or need. Source: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adb.nsf/85b15a3388df13624a2565c6001633d9/9fd08d37dcaed9cfca256c37000500ef?OpenDocument
|
Dear Alan,
Further to my last communication to you, on the 11.55 pm, Sunday night (26-06-05) Reverend Bill Cruise Show it was said that even Reverend Harry Herbert thinks Daniel Scott was wrong. Therefore; your own radio station's evidence re-establishes the fact that my previous standing regarding your interview with Andrew Bolt and your subsequent opposition to the proposed Religious Vilification Law is wrong, immoral, illogical and futile. If you don’t have any ill-motivation then you’ve got no reason to fear for the proposed law. Very simple I thought!
Waiting for your reply.
Faruque Ahmed
| 