Fine Art with a paint roller

This is an opinion piece centered around attitudes discussed in Australia during the week of December  14th-20th...

So much static in newspaper comments sections this week after what has come to be known as the #sydneysiege. 

I read all of the papers, even the horrifically biased ones. I read them all, to glean the facts from the speculation, and observe in wide-eyed wonder the journalistic leaps and assumptions that get made without basis every day. By professional journalists.

And the comments sections are just lousy with people trying to pin everything that happens on the opposing political party (aren't we collectively sick of that juvenile partisan buck-passing yet? Don't we expect more?), and the never-ending battle between the 'right' and the 'left' (whatever they are).

I don't belong to either demographic. I'm rabidly equal rights for women, but in no way feminist. I'm a humanist- I believe in equality, not the splintered misandrist embarrassment feminism has been allowed to become under the hateful watch of Jessica Valenti and Jess Zimmerman. 

I believe in sustainable energy, but also in mandatory minimum prison sentences, which puts me on both sides of the equation. I am heavily pro-CCTV for crime prevention and to aid in prosecution 'after the fact', but believe wholeheartedly that asylum seekers are not getting a fair go in Australia. I'm a big fan of mil-spec tech, but only for those who have been adequately screened and trained.

So what?

When talking about Man Haron Monis, the utterly abhorrent perpetrator of the killings of two innocent people in Martin Place this week, reactions have fallen into two main categories:

1. Muslims are a threat and must be stopped.
2. Australia is a shining example of multicultural success, we must encourage tolerance.

When examining these assertions prima facie, one seems negative, and two seems positive.

And positive is always better, right? Not when it runs counter to logic...

We witnessed the birth of the #IllRideWithYou campaign on twitter, an outpouring of support for Muslims by a population desperate to distance itself from The Cronulla Riots 9 years ago.

And I read waves of comments and posts from people in the community who defended religious freedom in Australia, supported Islam, and accused anyone who spoke against Islam in the context of the siege as Islamophobic, racist, of being a redneck, or a bogan.

But it's not that simple. The facts don't lie on the side of one political ideology or the other. Some people aren't racist or phobic of any religion per se,  but their inbuilt pattern recognition software has logged an inordinate number of spikes in the column for Islamic violence (or violence perpetrated by followers of Islam, whether they were lone-wolves or card carrying members of ISIS). Some others would put forward this has more to do with media bias. And they may even be right. The same can be said for christianity, too.

We've gotten so caught up in what is the definition of terrorism, and the finger pointing that comes with anyone suggesting that Monis fits the bill due to his recent shift in allegiance between Islamic denominations, that we've ignored a simple fact.

If someone identifies as Catholic, then we consider them Catholic. If a Catholic identifies as Christian, then we accept them as Christian. Even though the act of being a Catholic biblically (not a word) precludes them from Christianity, due to Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.", and John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I'm not religious (we'll get to that), but the point here is that the bible (which is the canonical collection of texts sacred to Christianity), is the playbook for Christianity, and if you ignore the playbook- you're off the team. Simply put- logically, Catholics are not Christians. But if they call themselves that, it's only pedantic losers like me who intensively studied Philosophy for years at University that call them out on it.

In the case of Monis, he identified as ISIS, which is a jihadist sect of Sunni Islam. Therefore, who are we to say he isn't? Commentators are at pains to point out he was a "lone gunman" who worked without support, but that's impossible. Even though he was considered a lunatic by his own people, someone still gave him a shotgun. He has been enabled by women all throughout his adult life (and as it transpires, killed one of them). If he claims ISIS, he's ISIS. By their own definition, they encourage and supply tactical information to lone wolves who they've never met, but who have answered the call to arms.

Others would argue that his mental state is where my assertion falls down. He was a crazy misogynist attention-seeker, not a terrorist. So... ISIS isn't packed to the mashrabiya with crazy misogynist attention-seekers? Wait, isn't that their core constituency?

Also, many in Islam protest that ISIS and Al Quaeda don't represent "true" Islam. What is true Islam? What makes one interpretation of a Bronze Age creation myth any more relevant than a slightly different one?  Or more relevant than Buddhism or Pastafarianism? If all of these religions claim to be right, why pay attention to any of them? Especially when none among them can offer proof? You can't come up with a slightly different version of science that also passes the repeatability test every time, that's why we only have one science. Everything else is just mythology.

But all of that is just semantics really. It's academic. None of it brings the victims back. 

But it can stop it from happening again.

You see, the people who call "tolerance!" and the unconditional support that #IllRideWithYou offers, are making things worse. They don't mean to, and I know it. They mean well. They are being positive. But that blind acceptance of Islam is illogical.

More specifically, blind acceptance of anything is illogical.

The LGBTQI+ communities, and those of us who support them, have been campaigning for marriage equality rights in Australia for years. Many of those who said #IllRideWithYou support this campaign too. And while it's noble to offer support to a community of people who perceive being a homosexual as not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God; is it right?

I'm old enough to remember the protests against apartheid in South Africa. Protests against disgusting and discriminatory views against people were not only absolutely deserving of equality, but who were in fact indigenous to the nation (Sound upsettingly (again, not a word) familiar?)

We didn't support South Africa. We actively boycotted and sanctioned and shamed them until they saw reason. We didn't offer to ride with them. Not at least, until they adjusted their disgusting and hurtful behaviour. And they did.

So why exactly do people who are pro Gay marriage think it's positive to support members of a religion that actively not only persecutes gay people, but imprisons or kills them? Why aren't we having a national dialogue that starts with "If you want our support, it's a two-way street"?

And how many success stories came from that hashtag? *facepalm*

Did it occur to all of the privileged white Aussie girls with their imported makeup and thigh tattoo-revealing H&M skirts that most Muslim women wouldn't want to be seen dead with them? That the way they dress and flaunt themselves is an affront to Muslim decency? That the person who started the hashtag wasn't even sure about the actual factual circumstances around which she started it, that no one consulted the Muslim community, and that it's fucking insulting to think skinny white girls from Brisbane are somehow superior to Muslim women from Western Sydney, who need 'rescuing' by members of a culture they don't naturally associate with?

People are calling me a racist right now- an Islamophobe. Islam isn't a race. And I'm phobic of every single religion and toxic ideology on this planet. It's 2014, religion isn't needed any more- we have science now. We have logic (not that the 3/4's of the population of the world who actively ascribe to a religion reflects that).

But I'm not trying to hate on Islam here. Islam is irrelevant to me, just like all religion. I want facts, not invisible friends and sky fairies. I'm trying to point out the dangers inherent in painting fine art with a paint roller.

Monis was an asylum seeker. He was granted residency here, and he repaid that by sexually assaulting tens of women, and killing two. He also killed a man.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that all of the people bleating on about how Australia needs to just open the gates to asylum seekers are illogical, and dangerous.

But as I tried to illustrate in the fifth paragraph- it's not just black and white. 

This fact doesn't therefore excuse Abbott and Morrison's brutal war on asylum seekers. There is a balance, and we as a nation need to find it. We need to find the balance between screening potential threats to the country like Monis, and at the same time treating asylum seekers with dignity, respect, and compassion. That's who we are as a country. Those are qualities we have.

We need to stand up to Islam and say "(Some of) your collective attitudes have no place in this country, and we will only stand beside you when you take responsibility for those attitudes." We also need to implement their Islamic banking system tomorrow, because it's awesome.

We need to stop being so scared and conditioned to not speak out against Islam for fear of having fingers pointed at us by people who accuse of us being hateful. I'm sure the Catholic Church accused Nicolaus Copernicus of the same thing, but how wrong were they?

The movement of blind acceptance is so strong in this country. The majority of people here have never seen a war or truly suffered as a consequence of religion. Empathy is in overdrive, and the sheep are so quick to jump on the support bandwagon, without ever asking the hard questions, or saying the hard statements.

Islam needs to change if it is to ever be respected in Australia. In short, it needs to stop being Islam. The Catholic Church needs to stop raping young boys and covering it up, also- to stop being Catholic. And people without religion need to do exactly the same thing- the right thing, within our shared societal contract.

If you accept every Muslim, poisonous ideologues like Monis will kill your countrymen or families. There are people just like Monis out there right now, who have slipped through the cracks- and blind empaths are out there too, riding with them. To be clear, there aren't a lot, but any number higher than one is enough to make this whole nation mourn. If you accept every conservative right-winger, poisonous ideologues among them will also kill people in the community. Blind acceptance isn't a virtue.

Not all Muslims are hardline, but they are, by definition, anti qualities of acceptance that the majority of Australian's hold dear. If they want acceptance- give acceptance. It's their turn. 

The problem is, Islam can't change. It can't be progressive. It can't lose the bad parts and ramp up the good. Because it's set- the laws are already written. The only way Muslims can change in a way that is acceptable and in line with modern thinking, is to stop being Muslim.

Not going to happen.

And if we were allowed to throw poison-spewing Australian citizens in jail or to deport them, talkback radio would cease to exist.

So what can we do? 

Think about your position on matters. Educate yourself. Look at both sides of each story and ask yourself where the ethical position lies. Don't just hashtag a MEME on Instagram then go to Stereosonic or Summadayze and get hammered and high.

The number of thoughtless people in this country is staggering. The herd mentality is terrifying, but ubiquitous. So many people think they are moral but only act from self interest. We as a culture have massive problems relating to our own attitudes. 

Maybe it's easier to call someone an Islamophobe than it is to look inside and see the gaps in our own logic.

Stop making excuses for things and indignantly shouting down anyone who you think is being negative- it's not all fluffy puppy land out there. Confront it, and only then you can change it...

Otherwise, nothing changes (just like with the swinging voters who voted in Abbott). And you will only have yourselves to blame.

Falling on your own sword.

Video here.

There is a lot of international debate lately about banning burqas/hijabs, mainly for the reason that those who wear them are essentially disguised, in a society that doesn't really go for people walking around in disguises (for security reasons).

Of course, some Muslims see this as discrimination (although you're not allowed to claim discrimination when banned from holding hands with your wife in public in Dubai), because it is convenient to shift the blame to the country you're in, as opposed to your own personal conduct within the culture of that country.

The funny thing is, in the news at the moment, there exists the story of a 46 year old Muslim woman from Sydney (Carnita Matthews), who has been jailed for making a false complaint.

"The mother of seven was stopped in June by a police officer at Woodbine for a random breath test. She later filed a police complaint alleging the officer who pulled her over had tried to pull off her hijab, which concealed her entire face except for her eyes.

The court was told that after being issued an infringement notice for not properly displaying her P-plates, the 46-year-old branded the officer "a racist" and claimed he only booked her because of what she was wearing.

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

OK, great. After this, she went to a police station and made a (false) complaint. "However, the court was told that an officer who three days later accepted a statutory declaration from a burqa-clad woman he assumed to be Ms Matthews failed to check her identification.

Ms Matthews' lawyer, Stephen Hopper, said there was no way for police to prove that his client was the one who signed the statutory declaration at Campbelltown police station on June 10. Mr Hopper said that meant Ms Matthews should not have been charged with the offence of making a false complaint to police."

Do you know what else that means? It means one idiotic woman, has made a big news story about what a liar she is, and at the same time JUSTIFIED WHY BURQAS/HIJABS SHOULD BE BANNED IN WESTERN COUNTRIES!!!

If her own defence is going to turn around and claim it could have been anyone in a hijab that gave the statutory declaration that day, then it goes to reason that because of that fact, no-one should be allowed to wear one, or at the least, remove it for identification purposes.

And if that is such a massive problem for you, then move to a Muslim country, it's that simple.

Of course this will provoke the usual calls of racism. But there are things I can't do in Muslim countries. If I want to do those things, I have to move here. So why different rules for Islam?

Stephen Hopper, in the pursuit of an excuse for one Muslim client (and who failed, because she's in jail), has pulled the rug out from under the cause of all Muslims in the West, who wish to observe their religious style of dress. Carnita Matthews, has sold out the cause for all of her brothers and sisters in Islam, to get out of a ticket.

Just wow.

Addendum 21/06/2011:

Remember when I said "Carnita Matthews, has sold out the cause for all of her brothers and sisters in Islam, to get out of a ticket"?

The Police Minister has in the press today made clear he intends to tighten up identification procedures for those who wish to hide their faces for religious purposes- Carnita has sold out her brothers and sisters in Islam.

When I think of Islam, I think of people drawing from a rich and extensive history of the written word, of intellectual thought, of science.

Increasingly however, we are confronted by images like the ones above, of aggressive Muslims shouting and acting violently in public, instead of engaging in reasoned argument, whenever things don't go their way (interestingly enough, things did go their way in the above picture, but it turned violent anyway).

(Edit: A lot of the faces in those pictures are now dead because they left Australia to join ISIS, which at the time of this post didn't yet exist).

I hate to sound like a radio talkback DJ after ratings, but I'm sick of it. I'm sick of scenes like this one in Australia. I'm sick of shouting and threats, hiding behind religion. Don't get me wrong, I'm sick of white Australians acting badly too.

I don't care whether jails work or not. I don't care if they're just breeding grounds for future criminals. If someone acts violently, they should be removed from society, and thrown in a dark hole. And if they don't learn the first time, don't ever let them out the second time. I'm sick of civil libertarians holding society to ransom over the 'rights' of criminals.

I'm sick of all of it, because law, and particularly order have become a joke.

I would much rather a society where people are raised right, with a sense of family, community, balance. But we don't have that society, and we're never going to have it.

Lock them up, and let them rot. If they're not from here, send them back. And fuck their 'rights'. Because the people who were born here, and would like to grow old here, are under attack from violent offenders, and it has to stop.

In Muslim countries we have no rights, but of course we're not allowed to use their laws on them here.

Ms. Matthews is a joke- a stupid woman who makes Muslims look like unintelligent criminals, hiding behind the symbol of her own oppression for personal gain. She broke the law, but escaped jail, and the absolute idiots in the photographs who support her celebrate that fact today.

When all they have done, is brought increased police scrutiny and security measures against their religion, over what? A minor driving infringement.

Where is their leadership? Why have they allowed this to happen? Why didn't she just pay the fine instead of turning this into a three-ring media circus?

Because she is stupid. Her supporters are stupid. And now everyone who covers their head will have to remove their burqa/hijab when dealing with police- exactly the thing Carnita Matthews had a problem with in the first place.

"WOMEN wearing the burqa or other head covering may be ordered to remove it to identify themselves in the wake of the Carnita Matthews case.

Police Minister Mike Gallacher has revealed that police do not currently have the legal power to require women to show their face if the women refuse on religious or cultural grounds.

He said he wanted the law tightened up.

"Police powers in relation to face coverings are not clear," Mr Gallacher said.

"It’s time to address that."

He said he had spoken to rank and file police who wanted the situation clarified.

Any decision on whether to appeal the controversial judgment by Judge Clive Jeffreys would not be made until after the judge hands down the reason for his decision which is expected tomorrow.

The government is also considering passing new laws requiring people who make complaints against police, or in the case of witnesses giving evidence, to have to provide at least one fingerprint and their signature.

This follows the finding by the judge that he could not be certain that it was Ms Matthews who made the statutory declaration complaining about the officer who stopped her car because the person who handed the document in to the police station wore a burqa.

Mr Gallacher said he was waiting until Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione returned next week to discuss exactly what needed to be done.

He said he did not expect this to inflame community anger about women wearing full face coverings.

He said he had been told that there was nothing in Muslim culture or religion that stopped women from identifiying themselves in certain circumstances.

Yesterday, Ms Matthews avoided jail because her identity could not be proven.

Ms Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney's southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.

The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station - what started the uproar in the first place.

More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting "Allah Akbar" as they stormed out of Downing Centre Court with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them.

Tempers rose and they began jostling with police after several members of the group attacked cameramen.

It marked a stark difference from their behaviour minutes earlier, when they had quietly assembled outside the lifts for prayer shortly after the judge's decision.

Mrs Matthew's lawyer Stephen Hopper defended their actions saying: "They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them."

Judge Jeffreys said yesterday that even if Mrs Matthews had made the complaint, he could not be sure she knew it was a "false" statement.

"I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint," he said.

"Even if I was satisfied that she made the complaint, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false."

Mrs Matthews made the claim in her court appearance last year, saying police could not prove it was her behind the burqa when the complaint was handed in to police. The local magistrate rejected it.

The case had lit up the religious debate when a magistrate found Mrs Matthews had deliberately made false complaints that Sergeant Paul Kearney was racist and had attempted to tear her burqa off her face when she declined to remove it on request.

She was pulled over for a random breath test last June, and accused Sgt Kearney of racism only after he booked her for failing to properly display her P-plates.

The incident was captured on a patrol car video camera and helped clear Sgt Kearney, prompting calls for all police cars to carry in-built cameras to avoid false claims.

"I've got my P-plates on my car ... there was nothing wrong with how they were displayed," Mrs Matthews says on the video.

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

She then threatens, "100 per cent", that she will take the matter to court and fight the charge.

France was the first country in Europe to implement a full ban on covering up faces in public.

France's burqa ban descended into farce when the first women to be summoned before a European court for illegally wearing the garments were refused entry, because they would not remove their face coverings."

Addendum Two 04/07/2011:

As predicted, Carnita Matthews' false assertion that Police officer had attempted to rip her niqab (face veil) away from her face, and the media circus that followed, has blown up in her (covered) face.

The State Cabinet has given Police new powers to remove face coverings of anyone suspected of committing a crime. "Suspected".

So the thing Carnita said happened but didn't, will now be happening all the time, because of her, and her own selfish, short-sighted motivations.

Story here:

ANYONE with a head covering - including burqas - suspected of committing a crime will be forced to show their face with police given new powers by the State Government.

Premier Barry O’Farrell announced this afternoon his Cabinet has approved the powers which will come into affect in the next few months.

Police will be given new powers to require motorists and others suspected of committing crimes to remove any head coverings so they can be identified.

Mr O’Farrell said there should be no discrimination – in favour or against any race – when it comes to helping police identify people suspected of criminal breaches.

“I don’t care whether a person is wearing a motor cycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else – the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear,” he said.

“I have every respect for various religions and beliefs but when it comes to enforcing the law the police should be given adequate powers to make a clear identification.”

Meanwhile, Attorney General Greg Smith said the Director of Public Prosecutions had provided advice that an appeal against the decision in the Carnita Matthews case was unlikely to succeed.

The Government will not lodge an appeal.

This is knifey, from 'the internet'.