Yes, there is a Bankstown campus of UWS - this post is being typed in Bankstown, so I know. Bankstown is also home to the largest Islamic community in Australia, so although the campus is a small one, these lectures are likely to carry a certain amount of weight.
The Australian media is subject to the usual claims of Left or Right bias, depending on who is making the claims. Generally, the ABC (government broadcaster) is seen as Left-leaning, and of course, the commercial media sits further Right. If you consider the left to be more open to both Islam and homosexuality, and the right to be more likely opposed to both (gross generalisations here), obviously whichever arm of the media is reporting this, there will be a “cancelling out” effect, and the media may just not bother. Christian opposition to homosexuality is given much more coverage here, as both Left and Right have a clear side to take.
Of more concern to me is the anti-Jewish pronouncements of Australian Muslim cleric Sheikh Taj el-Din Al Hilaly. The Left is leaving it alone. The moderate Right media is also ignoring this, leaving it up to the shock jocks on talkback radio, which is a shame.
There certainly is a Keysar Trad, he’s a fairly well known spokesman for a community that’s had a lot of trouble recently. I find it hard to imagine he
, seeing as on the page for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission sponsored conference Racial Discrimination - Beyond Tolerance the abstract for his talk reads
So I’m still not convinced that this happenned. But are some leaders of the Australian Islamic communities bigots? Sure, why would you expect otherwise?
I think that if the mainstream Australian media heard of this lecture, and decided that it actually occurred, they would have reported it.
Its a sensationalist story and we are, after all, the home of both Packer and Murdoch, neither of which is likely to be too keen to miss out on an opportunity for stirring the pot.
These sorts of stories are very topical. While I agree with TLD’s broad characterization of the media outlets in Australia, I think that the ABC isn’t so keen to give Muslims an easy ride that it would hush the story. And I think that the commercial stations would regard such a story (if it had any importance at all, see below) as manna from heaven. It has every angle.
[ul] - It reinforces the stereotype of Muslims as a bunch of evil extremists (for 25 editorial sensationalism points),
it gives an opportunity to bash gays while appearing merely to report the words of others (for 25 points),
it makes universities look like hosts of loony extremism (a favourite right wing editorial staple) (for 50 points).
it provides an opportunity to make lefties squirm by highlighting the irony that muslims need defending against prejudice, but some muslims are perpetrators of the type of prejudice that lefties would defend others against (for another 50 points).[/ul]
150 sensationalism points in one story? Editorial orgasm!
So why hasn’t the story been run? Probably because it was as others have stated a tiny insignificant lecture that only fringe elements (such as Green Left) had any journos at, and which only surfaced months later, when the story was too cold.
There is more than one commercial medium, so it is correct to refer to the commercial media.
Secondly, I read something the other day by a leading Australian authority on word usage who concluded that many words (such as media) that were plurals, are now so widely used in the singular as to render your criticism invalid unless one subscribes to the theory that language does not change over time.
In fairness to december, he doesn’t accuse the media of being supportive of the statements alleged to have been made. He just asks why they weren’t reported, but “support” or “sympathy” is not the only possible, or most likely, answer. More plausible answers are "because the media are inept, incompetent, fail to spot somehthing newsworthy " (which is critical of the media but does not imply support for the meeting organisers) or “because the event was not newsworthy, or was too trivial to show up on any editor’s radar screen” (which I think myself is the correct explanation, and implies no criticism of the media).
So, why wasn’t it reported? More generally, I assert that this sort of thing isn’t generally reported in the US or Europe, either. I cannot remember seeing a mainsteam media article criticizing Muslim homophobia, except for a few right-wing sources. In the Netherlands, when the late Pim Fortuyn pointed out the problem, he was vilified by the media.
One possible answer is given by Hawthorne a few posts up:* “But are some leaders of the Australian Islamic communities bigots? Sure, why would you expect otherwise?”* S/he seems to be implying that Muslim homophoibia is so well known that it’s not newsworthy. I reject this explanatiomn for two reasons:[ul][]I don’t believe that the homophobic aspect of Islam culture is that well known.[]When Christian homophobes like Falwell and Robertson make homophobic statements, these statements get lots of coverage, even though we wouldn’t expect otherwise.[/ul]I believe that it’s not Politically Correct to criticize Islam culture, and that’s the main reason for the lack of publicity.
Your general point may have some merit, but I think the example you have chosen is not a good one. The meeting was an obscure meeting by an obscure society on a university campus. Dozens, if not hundreds, of such meetings are held every day. They are not considered newsworthy. This one may not even have been a public meeting. The media do not normally attend these meetings, or report them. That seems to me to be a complete and credible explanation of why what passed at this meeting would never come to the attention of any editor in the national media, or be reported there.
Can you find examples of other meetings held on the Bankstown campus of UWS which were reported?
He was vilified for certain remarks he made about Islam, and by asertion all muslims, as “backwards”.
he was strongly anti-immigration and his type of “Holland is full!” statements only lead to incitement of hatred. He was extremely xenophobic.
People publically make anti-homosexual remarks att the time, regardless of their political flavour. Should everyone of these be reported?
No, I read it as Within the set of Australian Islamic leaders the fact that some are homophobic should be no surprise as you will find the same within any religious (or non-religious) grouping, as homophobia is a sad fact of life.
Fortuyn himself was gay, so naturally he was concerned about the change in Dutch culture from the mass immigration of a group with a homophobic culture. He pointed out this problem in a accurate way. Aren’t homophobia and antisemitism “backwards” beliefs? As a result, he was vilified by the media in much the way TwistofFate did.
Fortune accurately criticize Muslim culture. In response he was accused of incitement of hatred and xenophobia. In short, he was verbally blasted because criticizing Muslim culture was not PC.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by december *
**I reject this explanatiomn for two reasons:[ul][li]I don’t believe that the homophobic aspect of Islam culture is that well known.[]When Christian homophobes like Falwell and Robertson make homophobic statements, these statements get lots of coverage, even though we wouldn’t expect otherwise.[/ul]I believe that it’s not Politically Correct to criticize Islam culture, and that’s the main reason for the lack of publicity. **[/li][/QUOTE]
Well at least you’ve cut through the bollox and shown your true meaning in this thread at last.
As to point (1) - rubbish. Islam - like Christianity - is continually attacked for its anti-gay teachings. There have been countless threads in here referring to it.
As to point (2) - I would refer you to the excellent thing that gobear said in this thread:
TwistofFate’s characterisation of my comment is what I meant.
This - and I’m not saying this for the first time - is where I have a problem with december. He doesn’t suggest that all Christians should be tarred with same brush as Falwell. But Muslims are different - their culture is, it seems, monolithic and homogenous. This is yet another attempt to vilify all Muslims based on the comments or actions of some, and yet another attempt to smear those who seek to reject this view as implicitly endorsing hatred of homosexuals (or Jews or westerners as the case may be). I’m still not buying it, and I’m still not going to let you peddle it unchallenged.
[woolly and TLD: were your remarks original? They were both superb I’d like to file them away with good attribution.]
Actually, this statement is pretty much in error. Falwell, Robertson, and others make anti-homosexual statements on a weekly basis. They are only reported when one of them uses homophobic language in the context of events such as Matthew Sheppard’s murder. Even then there is some slack: Falwell’s reactions to the declaration of two of his assistants that they were gay and could no longer support the false claims made by the people who claim to “cure” homosexuality got some back page play in a few newspapers and I do not recall it being broadcast, at all.
And, as noted, even when the statements of the Religious Right are published, they are not portrayed as the views of Christendom.