Shooting the messenger

It's no secret that the current Australian government has a responsibility problem. Every interview, every soundbite is scripted to blame others, and Labor in particular. Recently, Queensland and Victoria's LNP governments went down in history as one-termers. Outgoing Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, unable to take responsibility for the loss, turned on his colleagues, claiming it was their fault. Just after the election he blamed Labor and Unions as if there was something wrong with them campaigning against his attacks on workers.

This blame game, apparently in the DNA of the LNP, has now morphed into shooting the messenger ... the whistle-blower.

Freya Newman blew the whistle on Prime Minister Abbott's daughter, Frances, being granted a $60,000 scholarship for a Bachelor of Design course. The revelations were published on New Matilda ⁽¹⁾. While the Abbott government was planning to deregulate university fees that would drive up the cost of degrees, Freya Newman revealed that a secret deal was done in 2011 while Abbott was Opposition leader, with the Whitehouse Institute of Design which granted the scholarship. This was at a time when the Whitehouse Institute claimed on its website that it didn't provide scholarships. Abbott failed to disclose the gift which he was required to do as an MP.  Freya Newman worked in the Institute's library and had illegally accessed files through the college's computer network to reveal the gift. The Whitehouse Institute is chaired by Les Taylor, a Liberal Party donor and long-term friend of Tony Abbott ⁽²⁾. It raises the question of lobbying and whether the Whitehouse Institute was expecting benefits to flow their way. The Whitehouse Institute, like many private colleges, is a recipient of government funding ⁽³⁾. Abbott claims that the college didn't lobby for funds ... then again, he also said he complied with the rules of disclosure ⁽⁴⁾.

How did Abbott respond to this allegation of an undeclared personal gift? He attacked the whistleblower and Freya Newman was subsequently charged. After five harrowing months, Freya Newman faced court and pleaded guilty. The Magistrate sentenced her to a two year bond but did not record a conviction as Newman's actions were not 'driven by greed or any desire to embarrass Ms Abbott'. ⁽⁵⁾

Prime Minister Abbott has attacked the ABC on a number of occasions for blowing the whistle. For instance, when the ABC reported allegations of abuse of asylum seekers by Royal Australian Navy personnel. Surely it would have been prudent to investigate the matter rather than shoot the piano player.

Of course, this isn't the only report that Abbott and his government have criticised the ABC for. It seems any report that criticises the government is 'biased' according to the government. The ABC may be funded by the Australian government but it isn't Pravda ... it isn't the mouthpiece of the government.

The ABC reported, along with the Guardian, a phone hacking scandal in which the Australian government under former Prime Minister Rudd had been monitoring phone calls from senior Indonesian government officials, including the wife of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono⁽⁶⁾. The report was based on National Security Agency documents that were leaked by Edward Snowden, former computer contractor with the NSA.

In relation to both of these events, Abbott accused the ABC of being unpatriotic and stated that the ABC was on 'everybody's side but Australia's'. He accused Edward Snowden of being a traitor for revealing illegal behaviour by the Australian and American governments. Ironically, Abbott also stated that the ABC should give the Navy the 'benefit of the doubt'⁽⁷⁾. Ironic because Abbott declared that Australia had to stop giving the benefit of the doubt to asylum seekers ⁽⁸⁾. So, based on this logic it's ok to give benefit of the doubt for allegations of abuse by military personnel but not to give the benefit of the doubt to people fleeing persecution and abuse.

Recently, the Australian Human Rights Commission released its 'Forgotten Children' report which blew the whistle on systemic abuse of asylum seekers, particularly children, in immigration detention on Nauru and Manus Island. The report documented serious issues of abuse that had resulted in physical and mental illness in children. It reported suicide attempts, deteriorating mental and physical health and a basic lack of human rights by the Australian government. The report called for a Royal Commission into the treatment of children in immigration detention. Instead of acting on the report to ensure children were not abused, that their human rights were respected and a Royal Commission held, Abbott tried to have the President of Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, sacked for the report ⁽⁹⁾. He accused the report of being partisan even though the abuse it documented commenced under the previous Labor government. Triggs revealed the information while Abbott and his then Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, perpetuated the abuse.

On 16 February 2015, ABC's Four Corners program revealed wide-spread incidence of live-baiting within the greyhound racing industry. Live-baiting includes the use of live animals, such as rabbits, piglets and possums, to train greyhounds who run them down and kill them. It is illegal and it is cruel. The report resulted in the entire board of Greyhound Racing NSW being stood down ⁽¹⁰⁾. Agriculture Minister, Barnaby Joyce, attacked the ABC and the whistle-blowers who had trespassed in order to gain the evidence⁽¹¹⁾. Of course, had they not trespassed the scandal wouldn't have been exposed.

Contrast this to when Four Corners revealed allegations of the brutal slaughter of live exports to Indonesia. Then Prime Minister Gillard banned live exports until Indonesia could prove animal welfare safeguards were in place ⁽¹²⁾. Although she eventually gave into agriculturalists and resumed live trade, she didn't shoot the messenger.

Former Prime Minister Howard had a record of attacking whistle-blowers too. He attacked and attempted to discredit intelligence analyst, Andrew Wilkie, who blew the whistle over the false 'weapons of mass destruction' claims being used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 ⁽¹³⁾. Wilkie quit his job and entered politics, initially as a Greens candidate and then as an independent member.

Attorney-General George Brandis has called for the jailing of an ASIS officer who revealed that Australia had been spying on East Timor Cabinet during negotiations for the Timor Sea Treaty ⁽¹⁴⁾.

These are not facetious or trivial claims, so why is the government attacking the whistle-blower instead of taking action on the claims. The Abbott government is introducing legislation to jail journalists who publish Snowden-style leaks⁽¹⁵⁾. The government is clearly opposed to freedom of speech and particularly opposed to those who reveal the misconduct, or the possibility of misconduct, by the government or its agencies.

In 2014 the government changed the rules for whistle-blowing which made it an offence for a whistle-blower to go public rather than keep the matter internal⁽¹⁶⁾. This means that those within an agency, or even the Minister, could try to shut down the whistle-blowing without ever acting on it. Given the government's history of shooting the messenger, federal public servants may be more inclined to 'leak' the information rather than come out as the whistle-blower.

Gonzo journalist, Hunter S. Thompson said, 'There are always risks in challenging excessive police power, but the risks of not challenging it are more dangerous, even fatal'. This quote doesn't just apply to police powers, but to government power, behaviour, policy ... and those things they government wants suppressed or hidden.

What ever happened to transparency and good government?

Surely good government includes doing the right thing, caring for people and acting on allegations of impropriety.

Rather than shooting the messenger, the government should heed the message.

Update 9 March 2015

The United Nations has released a report into Australia's detention centres and found that they breach the international convention on torture. Abbott's response? Shoot the messenger! Instead of being horrified by the report, Abbott stated that Australians are 'sick of being lectured by the United Nations' ⁽¹⁷⁾.

The report found a number of breaches of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, including the indefinite detention of children and the deportation of Sri Lankan asylum seekers. It's no surprise that Abbott has shot the messenger. After all, Abbott and his government unleashed an unprecedented attack on Gillian Triggs, President of the Human Rights Commission for reporting the systemic physical and mental abuse of children in Australia's detention centres.

Abbott's behaviour clearly shows that he has no concern with child abuse or torture. Instead, he is genuinely horrified that someone would dare call him out on it. His behaviour, and that of his minister's, condones child abuse, condones torture, condones human rights abuses.

What sort of amoral human being ignores abuse and torture, ignores the perpetrators of it, ignores the role his government and government policies have played, but attacks the whistle-blower.

Abbott provided Sri Lanka with two naval vessels to hunt down and capture anyone who dared try to escape the brutality of the Sri Lankan government. Four days before the release of the UN report, the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice reported that 84% of people in north-east Sri Lanka have experienced a family member being detained ⁽¹⁸⁾. The Campaign was pleading with the British Home Office not to tighten rules on asylum seekers from Sri Lanka because the situation is as dangerous as it ever was. Disturbingly, they warned of reprisal actions by Sri Lanka's paramilitary organisations. The UN has also stated serious concerns about the level of torture in this country. The same country whose torture and human rights abuses Abbott sponsors and is happy to return asylum seekers to.

Is it any wonder then, that Abbott has not grasped the gravity of the UN report into Australia's breaches of the torture convention. This is a government of cruel, fascist politicians who consolidate power through fear-mongering. They attack the most vulnerable in the world purely for political expediency.

A UN report that identifies Australia's detention policies amount to torture and human rights abuses. An Australian Human Rights Commission report that identifies ongoing abuse of children because of Australia's detention policies. For each report, the Abbott government attacked the author rather than defending the victims against the abuse and torture reported.

What next? Will the government start blaming rape victims for being raped?

Blaming the victim is the hallmark of the coward and the corrupt.

Based on the government's response to these reports, it's failure to act or take responsibility, it is clear that Abbott presides over a depraved, corrupt and criminal government.


References

1. New Matilda, Chris Graham and Max Chalmers, 21 May 2014, 'Leaked Documents Cast Doubt On Abbott's $60k Scholarship Claims', https://newmatilda.com/2014/05/21/leaked-documents-cast-doubt-abbotts-60k-scholarship-claims. Accessed 19 February 2015.

2. Sydney Morning Herald, Dan Harrison and Daisy Dumas, 21 May 2014, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-friend-linked-to-60000-scholarship-for-frances-abbott-at-private-college-20140521-38olh.html. Accessed 19 February 2015.

3. Whitehouse Institute of Design, http://whitehouse-design.edu.au/courses/vetis/general-information.html. Accessed 19 February 2015.

4. SBS, Source AAP, 'College didn't lobby for funds: Abbott', 23 May 2014, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/05/23/college-didnt-lobby-funds-abbott. Accessed 19 February 2015.

5. SBS, Gary Cox with AAP, 'No conviction for student who leaked Frances Abbott's scholarship details', 25 November 2014, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/25/no-conviction-student-who-leaked-francis-abbotts-scholarship-details. Accessed 19 February 2015.

6. ABC, Michael Brissenden, 'Australia spied on Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, leaked Edward Snowden documents reveal', 5 December 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/australia-spied-on-indonesian-president-leaked-documents-reveal/5098860. Accessed 19 February 2015.

7. ABC, Latika Bourke, 'Prime Minister Tony Abbott says ABC not on Australia's side in interview with 2GB', 4 February 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/tony-abbott-steps-up-criticism-of-abc/5224676. Accessed 19 February 2015.

8. Sydney Morning Herald, Liam Mannix, 'Bad people' treating us as mugs: Abbott's national security warning, 15 February 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bad-people-treating-us-as-mugs-abbotts-national-security-warning-20150215-13f3bd.html. Accessed 19 February 2015.

9. Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Gordon, 'Revealed: Abbott government tried to remove Gillian Triggs as head of the Australian Human Rights Commission', 14 February 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/revealed-abbott-government-tried-to-remove-gillian-triggs-as-head-of-the-australian-human-rights-commission-20150213-13du7s.html. Accessed 19 February 2015.

10. Sydney Morning Herald, Natalie O'Brien and Chris Roots, 'NSW Racing boss says no excuses for live baiting of greyhounds at training', 19 February 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-racing-boss-says-no-excuses-for-live-baiting-of-greyhounds-at-training-20150219-13iwj7.html. Accessed 19 February 2015.

11. The Australian, Jared Owens, 'Barnaby Joyce criticises activists in greyhound live-bait expose', 17 February 2015, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/barnaby-joyce-criticises-activists-in-greyhound-live-bait-expose/story-e6frg6nf-1227223167503. Accessed 19 February 2015.

12. Sydney Morning Herald, Richard Willingham and Tom Allard, 'Ban on live cattle trade to Indonesia', 8 June 2011, http://www.smh.com.au/national/ban-on-live-cattle-trade-to-indonesia-20110607-1frdg.html. Accessed 19 February 2015.

13. The Age, AAP, 'Personal attacks don't explain war: Wilkie', 23 August 2003, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/23/1061529370330.html?from=storyrhs. Accessed 19 February 2015.

14. Crikey, Bernard Keane, 'Brandis moves to jail whistleblower and lawyer for revealing ASIS scandal', 1 September 2014, http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/09/01/brandis-moves-to-jail-whistleblower-and-lawyer-for-revealing-asis-scandal. Accessed 19 February 2015.

15. The Guardian, Paul Farrell and Daniel Hurst, 'Journalists will face jail over spy leaks under new security laws', 16 July 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/journalists-face-jail-leaks-security-laws. Accessed 19 February 2015.

16. Lowy Institute, The Interpreter, 'The silence of the lambs: The public service, leaks, and whistleblowing in Australia', 2 May 2014, http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/05/02/The-silence-of-the-lambs-Leaks-and-whistle-blowing-in-Australia.aspx. Accessed 19 February 2015.

17. The Age, Lisa Cox, 'Tony Abbott: Australians 'sick of being lectured to' by the United Nations, after report finds anti-torture breach', 9 March 2015, http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-australians-sick-of-being-lectured-to-by-united-nations-after-report-finds-antitorture-breach-20150309-13z3j0.html. Accessed 9 March 2015.

18. Tamil Guardian, '84% of people in North-East have had a family member detained, says Sri Lanka Campaign', 5 March 2015, http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articleid=14000. Accessed 6 March 2015.

Australia's manufactured debt crisis

Treasurer Joe Hockey has been sounding the drums of economic war by proclaiming the Australian economy faces a 'budget emergency'. Key to this is his claim that Australia is borrowing $100 million a day.

The ABC, bless their hearts, fact-checked this claim and found it was true ⁽¹⁾. In fact, they found Hockey had slightly under-stated it. Australia is borrowing $110 million a day using the Hockey formula of dividing the deficit ($40.362 billion as of December 2014) by 365 days which equals a tad over $110 million a day. At the time of the claim, the Australian Office of Financial Management reported Australia's gross debt at $350.734 billion.

These are big numbers. Big scary numbers which fit well with the LNP script to scare the bejesus out of the electorate ... you know, scare us with terrorism (Labor's fault), asylum seekers (Labor's fault), budget emergency (Labor's fault). Labor is all that is wrong with the world if you listen to the LNP MPs who sound more like Doomsday Parrots then members of parliament.

The ABC Fact Check then quotes Professor Jakob Madsen of Monash University who states, 'I think it's a bit alarmist'. You think? He then goes on to point out that measuring the deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a better measure of an economy's health. The deficit is 2.5% of GDP. Scary stuff that.

That means that GDP is 40 times the deficit. Hardly an emergency.

What it indicates is that in this society of 'lifters and leaners' (to quote one of Abbott's insightful three word slogans), there are some who could lift a tad more.

Numerous economists have been pointing out that Australia does not have a spending problem, but it does have a revenue problem. And that problem isn't because of a lack of sources of revenue, but a structural problem with its tax system that sees the lifters being at the lower end of the income spectrum while the upper end shirk their responsibilities ... are in effect, leaners. ABC Fact Check quotes Richard Robinson from BIS Shrapnel who succinctly sums it up, 'In my opinion, a large chunk of the revenue problem is due to large tax benefits to already wealthy people, with the largest of these being superannuation breaks, capital gains tax breaks and negative gearing'.

Hockey has extrapolated the fear-mongering further by claiming that by 2037 Australia's debt will reach a whopping $1 trillion ⁽²⁾. Another huge number. But what about GDP?

Australia's economy is growing at 2.7% per annum ⁽³⁾. This is around average for the last 20 years in which its growth generally ranged between around 1% to 5%. Erring on the side of the conservative, let's extrapolate this to 2037 using 2.7% as average (it's actually a tad under if anything). If Australia's economy continues to grow on average over the next 22 years as it did over the last 20, GDP will be $3 trillion by 2037. Around THREE TIMES the debt. Hardly a debt crises. By comparison, the United Kingdom's debt to GDP ratio is more than 90% and the United States is 71%. Australia's debt to GDP is the lowest in the OECD ⁽⁴⁾. At 30% or so, that is an enviable position.

Imagine having a mortage of $33,000 with a $100,000 income.

Would you panic?

No, of course not. You would make sure you were paying for it, but you wouldn't slash investments (spending) if it would cut into your revenue (income). That sort of policy is what's known as austerity ... and it is economic suicide.

LNP economics is one dimensional. It gives one side of the story while failing to consider other aspects. It fails to mention what bang we get for our buck. While some money is wasted, for instance the $1 billion a year on the illegal treatment and human rights abuses of asylum seekers ⁽⁵⁾, other money is well spent ... such as on infrastructure and tax concessions for the lower paid to increase their disposable income so they can spend it in order to help keep business afloat and increase consumer confidence.

If anything, Hockey's scare-mongering confirms one thing: Australia's economy is sound, strong and resilient. It is able to weather its current debt and deficit without attacking and demonising welfare or workers.

The Australia Institute released a paper in September 2014 that categorically shot down the LNP mantra about budget emergencies and all that fluff. At that time, Australia's debt was 13.8% of GDP ⁽⁶⁾. This report was signed by 63 of Australia's leading economists warning against austerity measures that had decimated European economies and which the LNP were willing to implement.

Where is the emergency? Well, I'm glad you asked. The emergency is in touted expenditure cuts. One of the reasons for Australia's decline in revenue is because of increases in unemployment as pointed out in the Australia Institute report. Only last week, Australia's unemployment reach 6.4% ⁽⁷⁾. The highest it has been in 10 years ... ironically, the last time it was this high, Australia's now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, was Employment Minister. Coincidence? I think not.

We started with an ABC Fact Check so let's end on an ABC Fact Check. A few months after the 2013 election, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen claimed the LNP doubled the deficit within eight months of being elected. ABC checked this out and found it to be true ⁽⁸⁾. Reasons for this included:

• axing the carbon price - $2.8 billion over four years. (Remember, 'axe the tax' - another of Abbott's mindless three word slogans which was factually incorrect as the carbon PRICE was not a tax if anyone took the time to read the legislation, particularly Section 100, subsection 11 which states, ' ... it is not a law imposing taxation within the meaning of Section 55 of the Constitution' ⁽⁹⁾. I encourage you to read it, it's a ripping good yarn).
• giving the Reserve Bank of Australia $8.8 billion
• immigration detention - $2.8 billion over four years (obviously understated given the later report mentioned above that found Australia is spending $1 billion per annum)
• land transport infrastructure program - $5.6 billion over four years
• Students First Package - $1.2 billion over four years.

There is no budget emergency in Australia. The 'emergency' is purely a work of political fiction to shore up confidence in the LNP and to discredit the Labor Party. It makes for an effective sound bite. It feeds the mindless three word slogans of Prime Minister Abbott.

There will be an emergency however, if the government fails to increase revenue by sourcing the wealthy and continues programs that cut jobs, pay and conditions for the lower paid ... those cuts will plummet Australia into recession which won't be good for the economy.

References

1. ABC News, 'Fact check: Hockey over-eggs 'borrowing $100 million a day' claim', 13 February 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-13/hockey-100-million/6085378. Accessed 14 February 2015.

2. The Daily Telegraph, Andrew Carswell, 13 February 2015, 'Australia’s debt crisis is a staggering $1 trillion nightmare, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/australias-debt-crisis-is-a-staggering-1-trillion-nightmare/story-fnpn0zn5-1227217818739?nk=6381409c52c7ccad94a77deb7f404b1c. Accessed 14 February 2015.

3. The Sydney Morning Herald, Gareth Hutchens, 4 December 2014, 'Australia's economy is still growing, so why does it feel like we're struggling?, http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australias-economy-is-still-growing-so-why-does-it-feel-like-were-struggling-20141204-1200xg.html. Accessed 14 February 2015.

4. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, 'Country comparison: public debt', https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html. Accessed 14 February 2015.

5. The Sydney Morning Herald, Sarah Whyte, 20 October 2014, 'Offshore detention centres: annual costs hit $1 billion, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/offshore-detention-centres-annual-costs-hit-1-billion-20141020-118s6i.html. Accessed 14 February 2015.

6. The Australia Institute, Economists’ Statement on Commonwealth Budgetary and Economic Priorities, http://www.tai.org.au/content/economists%E2%80%99-statement-commonwealth-budgetary-and-economic-priorities. Accessed 14 February 2015.

7. The Sydney Morning Herald, Mark Kenny, Gareth Hutchins, 13 February 2015, 'Abbott government rocked as unemployment hits highest rate since 2002', http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-rocked-as-unemployment-hits-highest-rate-since-2002-20150213-13d9lr.html. Accessed 14 February 2015.

8. ABC News, 'Fact check: Has the Government doubled the budget deficit?', 10 June 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-doubled-the-budget-deficit/5423392. Accessed 14 February 2015.

9. Australian Government, ComLaw, 'Clean Energy Act 2011 (repealed)', http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00131. Accessed 14 February 2015.

The rise of ISIS - Labor's fault?

Earlier this week, two men were arrested in Sydney for allegedly plotting a terrorist attack. The allegation is that they were in position of a $12 machete and a home-made video allegedly declaring their loyalty to Islamic State (ISIS) and their intention to kill a police officer.

Almost immediately, Prime Minister Abbott made a big deal about one of the men being an Iraqi refugee who had sought asylum in Australia. Apparently, the man had flown into Australia on a false passport.

Of course, this was Labor's fault ... so Abbott claimed.

As he does. As the entire LNP does. Their mantra, their modus operandi, if you are ever able to stomach one of their repetitive interviews is to (regardless of the question), bang on about how they 'stopped the boats', 'axed the tax' and ... I don't know ... something else. Either way, they come back to blaming Labor. They're like robots. Heard one LNP MP, heard them all. It's like listening to Bart Simpson. 'I didn't do it', Bart constantly exclaims. The LNP is the Bart Simpson of politics. Constantly stuffing up and constantly blaming others while repeating the same ol' same ol' over and over again.

But I digress. The Attorney-General, George Brandis spruiked from the 'blame Labor' band-wagon that Labor's immigration policies had caused the rise in domestic terrorism. Hmm ... one or two foiled incidents and it's all Labor's fault.

Well, Labor didn't cause ISIS or other terrorist groups.

ISIS was a direct result of the Coalition of the Willing illegally invading Iraq on the basis of a lie. Remember the Weapons of Mass Distraction lie? Sorry ... Weapons of Mass Destruction lie. Prime Minister John Howard, US sycophant, couldn't wait to send Australian troops into Iraq. Not the first lie in which he was happy to commit the Australian military. Remember the 'children overboard' lie and the Tampa crisis. All lies and crises invented for his popularity.

Prior to that, the Coalition of the Willing invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban were allegedly sheltering Al Qaeda who supposedly was responsible for 9/11. Maybe so. However, it didn't justify the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Funnily enough, Saudi Arabia, good friend of the USA, was implicated in 9/11 yet they weren't invaded ... too much money and power? Let's just pick on a country with an Army that can't possibly compete with such sophisticated Western weaponry.

The invasion of Iraq and subsequent overthrow of former US-puppet, Saddam Hussein, directly gave rise to numerous sectarian groups vying for power. ISIS being one of them. Saudi Arabia also funds ISIS, yet remains a 'good friend' of the USA.

If Brandis is so concerned about terrorism, he should look at his own party. It was his party who blindly and slavishly followed simpleton US President, George W. Bush, into the illegal invasion against a country that was no threat to the US, Britain, Australia or any other member of the Coalition of the Willing. In addition, the LNP has proudly declared its support of Israel which continues its illegal occupation and war-crimes in Palestine. Both of these actions have contributed immensely to angst against the West. Brandis doesn't see this because it has to be all Labor's fault.

Apparently, if someone threatens Australia, or the US, or Britain, it's perfectly acceptable to bomb the crap out of people who had nothing to do with it. But, if said people decide they need to defend themselves against unprovoked Western aggression then its terrorism and god help their mortal souls. All bets are off as the West (USA, Israel and so on) unleashes 'shock and awe' on innocent people, killing thousands of civilians, with the obsequious LNP cravenly waving its 'Go you good thing' flag.

Then there was the LNP donation of a couple of Naval vessels to the Sri Lankan government, a known abuser of human rights, to hunt down anyone who dare escape the persecution. Go you good thing, LNP, we can't have people thinking they can run away from torture and execution now. What sort of message would that send? Well, it tells me that the LNP condones torture and execution ...

While Abbott was trying to link asylum seekers to terrorism (as his hero, John Howard, also did), the Human Rights Commission released a damning report into the human rights abuses being committed by the Australian government against asylum seekers whom they continue to imprison in the gulags of Manus Island and Nauru. Holding vulnerable, traumatised adults and children for years (without charge of any crime, mind) while depriving them of basic rights of freedom, education, decent accommodation, food and water.

Abbott, a former trainee priest and supposedly 'practicing' Christian, stated that he was proud of his treatment of asylum seekers and that the Human Rights Commission should thank Scott Morrison, another self-proclaimed Christian, for stopping the boats. Apparently that is all the policy was. Stop the boats. The ungrateful asylum seekers should be thankful they didn't drown at sea but have been left to experience the criminal abuse of the Australian government.  Praise the Lord for a Christian government! A government who is proud to physically, emotionally and spiritually abuse the world's most vulnerable while discouraging victims of war, torture and persecution to leave their persecutors and seek safety in a 'Christian' country.

It's time the LNP grew up, grew some cajones and took responsibility for their own abusive, aggressive and illegal actions instead of opportunistically exploiting world tragedy to bolster their polling by intimidating the Australian public through lies and fear campaigns ... and looking for any excuse to blame Labor or refugees. How low is it to demonise asylum seekers, the world's most vulnerable people, who have no voice and are unable to defend themselves against such lies and abuse.

The LNP is promoting Islamophobia, hate crimes and xenophobia while trying to claim they uphold family values and are defending Australia's security. Our security is not at threat. Our family values, however, are under direct threat by the immoral actions and fear-mongering of Abbott and his cronies.

Terrorism is not a result of asylum seekers ... it is a direct result of foreign policy and intervention, of backing despots, war-crimes and human rights abuses to further Western imperialism.

State-sanctioned murder of Chan & Sukumaran

The state-sanctioned murder of Andrew Chan & Myuran Sukumaran

Indonesia inches closer to its promise to execute Australian drug traffickers, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran despite their appeals, pleas for clemency, requests from the Australian government and numerous human rights groups.

Indonesia has been practicing the death penalty since 1973 and reserves it for murder, terrorism, drug trafficking and genocide. It is enforced through firing squad, in which the accused criminal is blind-folded and stands or kneels before a squad of 12 armed executioners. Three of the 12 use live bullets, the other nine fire blanks. The practice is cruel and barbaric. Prisoners don't always die immediately. If they survive, the Commander issues another bullet and the prisoner is shot in the head. The prisoner and their family are given 72 hours notice of the impending execution.

The government believes it is sending a strong message and a deterrent to would be criminals. Without doubt, there would be some who would think twice about trafficking in Indonesia, yet the country has one of the highest rates of drug abuse in Asia and claims 50 people a day die from drug abuse. Clearly, the death penalty is not the deterrent the Indonesian government believes it is.

Victorian Supreme Court judge, Justice Lex Lasry told ABC's 7.30 Report on 11 February 2015, 'I don't believe there are any circumstances at all in which governments should take men or women out and kill them. We must be surely getting past the point where governments regard killing as a legitimate punishment. There are all sorts of other punishments - life imprisonment and so on - but the idea that a government would take individuals out into the bush, as they would here, and shoot them is just something that I can never live with and never understand, and apart from anything else, from a legal point of view, no-one really claims now that it has any real deterrent value. It's just a terrible thing to do'. ⁽¹⁾

The legality of the death penalty was challenged in 2007 but the Indonesian Constitutional Court declared it was constitutional.

The current round of state-sanctioned murders is purely political. President Joko Widodo was only elected in October 2014 in a close fought election. It had been two years since an execution, but almost immediately after the election, Widodo proceeded with executions of prisoners on death row. Six faced the firing squad in January 2015; all had been convicted of drug crimes. Former Labor Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans summed it perfectly when he said that Widodo was 'trying to demonstrate his cajones, his testosterone'. ⁽²⁾

The President is adamant that Chan and Sukumaran will be executed in February 2015 despite their pleas, despite their rehabilitation. Both men have contributed immensely to the well-being, education and rehabilitation of other inmates. Sukumaran studied art under the mentorship of Melbourne artist, Ben Quilty. He continues painting and has even sold some of his paintings to raise money for other inmates, such as Maria Cecilia Lopez who needed $4,000 for an operation on a tumour. Both Chan and Sukumaran have been actively involved in drug rehabilitation programs in prison, providing assistance, guidance and inspiration to other prisoners. Chan has become a Christian pastor and leads church services.

The Australian Federal Police are complicit in the deaths of Chan and Sukumaran. They were aware of the 2006 drug trafficking operation and could have arrested Chan, Sukumaran and the other members of the 'Bali 9' before they even left Australia. The AFP was well aware of the fate that awaited traffickers in Indonesia, yet they chose to let the nine travel to Bali for the operation before informing Indonesian authorities. The AFP has blood on its hands.

Some have argued that the men deserve to die because the drugs could have killed innocent people in Australia. A shallow argument. People aren't forced to use drugs. They use them because they choose them. No-one would have stopped using drugs because of the failed Bali 9 operation. Drug users, and their parents, need to take responsibility for their own actions and not blame others. The drug industry faces the same economic laws as every other industry. Namely, supply and demand. If the demand isn't there, there won't be supply. Contrary to what some believe, dealers are not nefariously aiming to increase supply by 'getting others hooked'. People choose to use drugs. Killing their traffickers does not stop or change this.

More importantly, killing the mules doesn't change this. The drug lords aren't the ones getting caught. They continue living in luxury looking for other mules to take the risk. This includes the man suspected of being the drug lord that Chan and Sukumaran were mules for. If reports are to be believed, he is living in luxury in Sydney ⁽³⁾. As we often see when it comes to the law, it's the ordinary person who pays the price while the wealthy get away scot-free.

Facing a firing squad is a high price to pay for politicians wanting popularity, to demonstrate their 'cajones', for a failed policy and for a stupid mistake the men made and admit to. They haven't denied trafficking and don't deny they should be punished. Life in prison would be preferable to death. It would also be more productive. They have touched the lives of many in prison and would have positive influence on many others over the coming years.

And it's not just about Chan and Sukumaran. No-one, regardless of the crime, should be executed. The death penalty is state-sanctioned murder, whether it's in Indonesia, the United States or any other country.

References

1. ABC, 7.30 Report, Leigh Sales, 11 February 2015, Supreme Court judge Lex Lasry calls for clemency for Bali 9 duo, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4178320.htm. Accessed 12 February 2015.

2. Brisbane Times, Deborah Snow, 11 February 2015, 'Bob Carr calls on AFP to explain themselves over Bali Nine'. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bob-carr-calls-on-afp-to-explain-themselves-over-bali-nine-20150211-13c3ax.html. Accessed 12 February 2015.

3. Sydney Morning Herald, Nick Mckenzie, Richard Baker, Michael Bachelard, 11 February 2015, 'Suspected Bali Nine mastermind living in luxury as Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran sit on death row', http://www.smh.com.au/national/suspected-bali-nine-mastermind-living-in-luxury-as-andrew-chan-and-myuran-sukumaran-sit-on-death-row-20150211-13aypt.html. Accessed 12 February 2015.

Linked article

• Post-script to the state-sanctioned murder of Chan and Sukumaran - published 3 May 2015

Charlie Hebdo - Many speak, few listen

The massacre in the offices of French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, was a tragedy. Twelve people were murdered and eleven injured when three masked gunman burst into the office and fired on them. Two days later the perpetrators were killed by police, following another siege. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed responsibility for the attack on Charlie Hebdo. ⁽¹⁾

Charlie Hebdo has courted controversy because it often publishes offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. For a number of years, the offices and some of its employees have been guarded by police because the depictions of Muhammad have infuriated many Muslims, with some threatening violent retaliation. On 7 January 2015 that retaliation came in the most tragic of ways. The surviving staff of Charlie Hebdo have sworn to keep the magazine open and to continue publishing its acerbic satire regardless of who it offends.

Interestingly, Charlie Hebdo was happy to offend Muslims but not to offend Jews so much. Charlie Hebdo is taking the 'freedom of speech' high ground over this attack ... but in 2008 the magazine sacked cartoonist Maurice Sinet for anti-Semitism after he made a jibe at French President Sarkozy's son ⁽²⁾. There are two things with this. Firstly, attacking Islam and Muslims is apparently fair game while criticising a politician marrying into a Jewish family isn't. Secondly, it's ok to offend those who have no political power, those who are the fodder in the West's war on terror or the victims of Israel's genocidal policies, but it's not ok to criticise someone with influence. Politicians are constantly the victims of satire and criticism, including Mr Sarkozy. The only reason Sinet was sacked was because his satire dared to ridicule Jews based on a common stereotype. How is that different to the magazine's depictions of Islam? The only difference is that it is probably less offensive, in that it didn't use sexual or perverted imagery. Yet Sinet was sacked.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo is being labelled an attack on freedom of speech. Without doubt, there are less violent ways to resolve issues with those who cause offense. Freedom of speech means that there will always be someone who is willing to push the boundaries of decency and respect. That doesn't mean they deserve to die.

Voltaire once stated 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'.

The attack was followed by an outpouring of anger, sympathy and solidarity for freedom of expression. Twitter was rife with #JeSuisCharlie (I Am Charlie) as people expressed solidarity with the victims. Not all who condemned the attack agreed with Charlie Hebdo's satire, but they were willing to defend its right to freedom of expression.

A free and just society should defend freedom of speech, however, this freedom is a two-edged sword. One person's opinion may offend another. But the other may also say things considered offensive. If we ban speech, where is the line drawn. It is a two-edged sword but one that must exist.

In Australia, freedom of speech came to a head in 2014 when the government considered repealing Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful for a person to act in a way that is likely to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group' based on 'race, colour or national or ethnic origin'. ⁽³⁾ Many on the right-wing saw this as left-wing, do-gooder, political correctness. The Attorney General, George Brandis, supported repealing 18C and stated that 'people have the right to be bigots'. I agree with him. People do have a right to voice their opinions and this includes the opinions of bigots who, sadly, walk among us still ... even in the more enlightened 21st century. This doesn't mean that offensive comments and behaviour isn't illegal under a host of other laws, such as defamation or incitement to violence.

While Brandis is happy to defend bigots, the conservative government he belongs to wages war on the publicly owned ABC and SBS networks because they don't always give favourable scrutiny to the government, it's policies or even of Australia's actions. Abbott even claimed the ABC took everyone else's side except Australia's when it was covering a story of allegations of abuse of asylum seekers by the Royal Australian Navy ⁽⁴⁾. Why should it take Australia's side? It's there to report news and make comment (remember, freedom of speech). There should be no 'sides' when it comes to revealing abuse, corruption and criminal behaviour.

The Charlie Hebdo massacre played into the hands of Islamophobes the world over. They predictably blamed all Muslims, blamed the Koran, blamed Islam. Some of these comments came from Christian pastors as if their own religions, creeds, politics or nations aren't guilty of encouraging racism, xenophobia and violence. Grenades were thrown at a mosque in France, a Muslim prayer hall was fired upon and a kebab shop was firebombed.⁽⁵⁾

The Islamophobes seem to have not realised that one of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre was a Muslim. In fact, this particular Muslim, Ahmed Merabet, was a police officer tasked with guarding the offices of Charlie Hebdo; the magazine that regularly attacked his Prophet with some of the most vile imagery and suggestion. Ahmed died protecting the free speech of a magazine that regularly ridiculed and deliberately offended his religion. ⁽⁶⁾ News of Ahmed's sacrifice was followed by many tweeting #JeSuisAhmed, in support of his selfless actions.

To argue that Islam is opposed to freedom of speech ignores the fact that in his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad, was subject to abuse and torment. He didn't respond violently. He called his followers to show love and compassion. When was the last time a Muslim country invaded a Western one? Centuries ago. For at least the last 200 years, almost all invasions and incursions have been perpetrated by Western nations, and often into Muslim lands. But its easy for the West to pick on its victims when it fails to show empathy.

One of the problems with racist satire is that it reinforces stereotypes in the mind of the easily led and it erodes empathy for others. This lack of empathy means that most Islamophobes have no understanding of the terror that their nations have inflicted on Muslim countries and people, nor do they care.

The media doesn't help with unbalanced reporting.  Some media reported the Charlie Hebdo attack as the first terrorist attack in Europe since 2005. Apparently, they forgot about Christian terrorist, Anders Breivik going on a bombing and shooting spree that killed 77 people in Norway. Breivik wrote a manifesto in which he demanded the deportation of Muslims from Europe and annihilation of Marxists and multicultralism. His was a terrorist attack. He was a Christian. Where was the outrage from those who rise up every time a Muslim kills an innocent? When terrorists kill in the name Islam, Muslims quickly condemn them, Imams speak out against them. Where was the outrage in the church after Anders Breivik killed in the name of God and an ideology embraced by many Christians?

The day before the Charlie Hebdo massacre, a bombing occurred in the United States at the office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). It received very little coverage. ⁽⁷⁾ Those who were offended by the lack of coverage hit Twitter with #NAACPbombing to bring attention to it. Had Muslims been responsible it would have been international news and no doubt followed by a Twitterstorm of Islamophobic hashtags.

It seems that people have either forgotten, or chosen to ignore, the West's attacks on the media. Before Muslims were attacking Charlie Hebdo, NATO bombed Tanjung, a state-run Serbian television station, killing 10 people and injuring 18. NATO justified it by claiming it ran propaganda from Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic who would later be charged with crimes against humanity. Whatever the justification, the building contained 150 civilians, a number of whom were killed in the attack. ⁽⁸⁾

In 2001, the United States bombed the offices of Middle Eastern journalism giant, Al Jazeera in Kabul, killing one employee and injuring another. The USA claimed it was accidental, however Al Jazeera claims that US forces were well aware of its location. ⁽⁹⁾

In 2003, the US again attacked Al Jazeera. This time in Baghdad, killing one and injuring another. ⁽¹⁰⁾

In 2005, reports emerged of a leaked memo between then US President George W. Bush and then UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, which indicated Bush's intention to bomb Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar. ⁽¹¹⁾ Blair thankfully talked Bush out of it.

The attacks on Al Jazeera were because America felt that their's was the only version of events that should be published. Al Jazeera on the other hand, felt that they shouldn't bend to western propaganda and instead published views and facts that were devoid of undue influence from the USA.

In 2008, Israel deliberately killed a Palestinian journalist in Gaza ⁽¹²⁾. In the 2012, Israel bombed the Russian TV office of Rusiya Al-Yaum in Gaza during its horrendous bombing campaign⁽¹³⁾. In 2014 Israel waged a genocidal attack on Gaza in which more 2,000 people were killed, most of whom were civilians⁽¹⁴⁾. During that war, Israel killed 17 journalists ⁽¹⁵⁾, yet hypocritically bemoans the Charlie Hebdo murders.

In 2014, a number of US networks sacked journalists who failed to support Israel and dared to show empathy for the Palestinians who were at that time being bombed incessantly by Israel. ⁽¹⁶⁾ The US and its media giants only like freedom of speech when it favours them, their policies or their allies.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways, as does condemnation. Quite rightly, the Charlie Hebdo attack was condemned across the globe. Contrary to what some have said, Muslims across the globe have also condemned the attack ^{(17) (18)}.

Muslims are in the middle, attacked by extremists abusing their religion, while bearing the brunt of the world's derision.

Muslims in the Middle ⁽¹⁶⁾

If we're going to claim that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was an attack on freedom of speech, then we must condemn all other attacks on freedom of speech. Including the attacks on Al Jazeera and other media by NATO, US and Israel.

The only 'side' we should take is against terrorism, against attacks on innocent people. We should not emulate Prime Minister Tony Abbott's belief that the media should side with Australia regardless of what laws or atrocities have been committed. G.K. Chesteron once stated, "My country right or wrong" is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying "my mother, drunk or sober".

Freedom of speech includes freedom to criticise or roundly condemn what is said. That is not an attack on freedom, if anything it is an exercise in freedom. Being able to speak freely, to write freely, should help each of us be more circumspect in our beliefs and in our actions if we can truly listen to what is being sad, if we can challenge ourselves and what is written to help identify the truth whether it be through satire or biting political commentary. Shakespeare wrote 'Jesters oft prove prophets' otherwise meaning 'the truth is often spoken in jest'. The world has much to learn about itself, to learn why people resort to terrorism, why people are angry, why war in the name of anything is wrong, whether it be religion, democracy, drugs or whatever else. Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred.

Is anyone listening to the voice of the people, of the victims?

While many are willing to express their freedom of speech they aren't so willing to express their freedom to listen and to learn.

Many speak, Few listen.


References

1. Al Jazeera, 'Deadly end to sieges', 10 January 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/hostages-dead-as-french-police-end-two-sieges-20151917917890998.html, accessed 10 January 2015.

2. New York Times, Basil Katz, 'A scooter, a Sarkozy and Rancor collide', 5 August 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/world/europe/05france.html. Accessed 10 January 2015.

3. Australian Government, Commonwealth Consolidated Acts, Racial Discrimination Act 1975 - Sect 18C, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html. Accessed 10 January 2105.

4. ABC News, Latika Bourke, 'Prime Minister Tony Abbott says ABC not on Australia's side in interview with 2GB', 4 February 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/tony-abbott-steps-up-criticism-of-abc/5224676. Accessed 10 January 2015.

5. The Telegraph, 'Paris shootings lead to firebomb attacks on French mosques', 8 January 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11332467/Paris-shootings-lead-to-firebomb-attacks-on-French-mosques.html. Accessed 8 January 2015.

6. World.Mic, Sophie Kleeman, '#JeSuisAhmed Reveals the Hero of the Paris Shooting Everyone Needs to Know', 8 January 2015, http://mic.com/articles/107988/the-hero-of-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting-we-re-overlooking. Accessed 9 January 2015.

7. Daily Kos, Shaun King, 'Frustrated by lack of mainstream media coverage, #NAACPBombing hashtag goes viral', 7 January 2015, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/07/1356085/-Frustrated-by-lack-of-mainstream-media-coverage-NAACPBombing-hashtag-goes-viral. Accessed 9 January 2015.

8. The Guardian, Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Serb TV station was legitimate target, says Blair', 24 April 1999, http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3. Accessed 8 January 2015.

9. The Guardian, Matt Wells, 'Al-Jazeera accuses US of bombing its Kabul office', 17 November 2001, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/nov/17/warinafghanistan2001.afghanistan, Accessed 8 January 2015.

10. BBC News, 'Al-Jazeera hit by missile', 8 April 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2927527.stm. Accessed 8 January 2015.

11. The Guardian, Dominic Timms, 'Al-Jazeera seeks answers over 'bombing' memo', 23 November 2005, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/23/iraq.iraqandthemedia. Accessed 8 January 2015.

12. The Electronic Intifida, Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 'Israel forces in Gaza "willfully kill" journalist', 17 April 2008, http://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-forces-gaza-willfully-kill-journalist/3347. Accessed 10 January 2015.

13. Sputnik International, 'Israel Airstrike Destroys Russia Today TV Channel's Gaza Office', 16 September 2012, http://sputniknews.com/world/20121118/177566787.html. Accessed 8 January 2015.

14. Amnesty International, 'Families Under the Rubble - Israeli attacks on inhabited homes', November 2014, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/032/2014/en/613926df-68c4-47bb-b587-00975f014e4b/mde150322014en.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2014.

15. Counter Current News, M.B. David, 'These 17 Journalists Were Killed by Israel', 29 August 2014, http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/these-17-journalists-were-killed-by-israel-in-gaza/. Accessed 10 January 2014.

16. World Socialist Web Site, Barry Grey, 'US networks remove reporters critical of Israeli attack on Gaza', http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/19/medi-j19.html. Accessed 8 January 2015.

17. On Islam, by Shari 'ah staff, 'How Muslim Scholars View Paris attack (in-depth)', 8 January 2015, http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/special-coverage/481653-paris-attack-charlie-hebdo-terrorist-cartoon.html. Accessed 8 January 2015.

18. Huffington Post, Jaweed Kaleem, 'Why Muslims Are Talking About Islam And Blasphemy After Charlie Hebdo', 7 January 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-muslims-blasphemy_n_6433104.html. Accessed 9 January 2015.

19. Khalid Albaih, (@khalidalbaih), Al Jazeera, 'Cartoonists react to Charlie Hebdo Attack', 7 January 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/cartoonists-react-charlie-hebdo-attack-201517171624156381.html. Accessed 10 January 2015.

Bacon and dregs - Pork wars and Christianity

Continuing with the theme about the hypocrisy of the campaigns against Islam, there are a number of people who are waging a 'bacon' war against Muslims. The theory is that because Muslims don't eat pork products, they can be driven out of Australia if some dang fool goes and smears bacon fat on the counter of a Muslim owned shop, or if said fool carries a ham sandwich around (somewhat akin to carrying garlic to repel a vampire ... and about as effective), or throwing a pig's head into the grounds of a mosque.

The world truly has gone mad.

The scary thing is that there really are people who honestly believe these actions will effectively repel Islam. What the hell is wrong with these people? They are the dregs of society, attacking innocent people with idiocy such as this.

Even more so, the Christians who promote these pork wars and think it is their calling in life.

Some argue that Australia is a Christian nation and therefore Halal does not belong. Australia actually is not a Christian nation. For it to be so, there would need to be some official government document to that effect, say like the Constitution. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution indicates that Australia is a secular nation with complete freedom of all religions in which the government can make no religious law either for or against any religion: 'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth'.

Every religion is welcome and protected in Australia.

Moving on.

Keep in mind that many of the anti-Halal Christians are also Zionists. Which means they worship the modern state of Israel as being a fulfilment of scripture. Let's ignore the fact that it is a Jewish state, so Israel does not worship or even recognise Christ. This in itself goes against the whole purpose of Jesus coming to Earth in the first place to redeem man from sin. But pardon my paralipsis. Back to the topic. In a nutshell this means that the pork war is potentially going to be offensive to Jews, whom many Christians have a great affinity for.

Let's have a quick look at what the bible says about pork and about Christians arming themselves with weapons of mass pork warfare.

• Leviticus 11:7-8 - and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. 8 Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.
• Deuteronomy 14:8 - Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses.
• Isaiah 66:17 - “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens after an idol in the midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, shall be consumed together,” says the Lord.

So the bible actually tells Christians they can't eat bacon. Of course, some Christians will argue against this and say that God changed his mind in the New Testament.

For instance, Mark 7:15 says There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.

Many Christians believe that this scripture now sanctifies all food. The scripture points out the obvious, that it isn't food that's important, but how a person lives their life. Those Christians who are living their lives to slander other religions are really just defiling themselves.

So, if Christians now believe that bacon is ok to eat ... then perhaps they might want to consider Acts 10:28 about not calling other people unclean:

Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Funnily enough, many Christians will justify eating bacon because the bible tells them its ok, yet they will complain about eating halal because it's not. There rationale? Acts 15:29 which states ' ... abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, from sexual immorality'. Is Allah an idol? Well ... that could be a long stretch, considering the word 'Allah' is the Arabic word for 'God', and the God worshipped by Muslims is the God of the Jews and of Christians. Hardly an idol. Additionally, putting some context around this scripture, it goes on to advise abstaining from blood. This could be taken to mean abstaining from all meat ... or it could mean to abstain from drinking blood ... you know, as Christians do in communion. Of course, it isn't warning against communion, but other religions did drink blood as a sacrifice to idols. Islam does no such thing.

Christians aren't just attacking Muslims by waging war with pork, but are also attacking halal certification. Halal means permissible. For cattle, this means killing the animal in a certain way while praying over them. Pigs are not allowed to be eaten, so are considered haraam (forbidden).

Romans 14:2-3 tells Christians that they are not to attack others for their culinary choices:

For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

1 Corinthians 10:31 tells us that whatever we do has to be for God's glory ... is attacking Muslims for halal certification or by throwing bacon at them really glorifying God? In fact, 1 Corinthians 10:32 is emphatic about not causing offense to anyone:

31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

So do the Christians who attack Muslims think this is some new evangelism strategy? Or do they just not care what the bible is telling them to do? Do they not care about the greatest commandment that Jesus gave them (love your neighbour as yourself).

In the New Testament the disciples traveled around the Middle East and Europe, meeting people from other religions. One of the issues they faced was food sacrificed to idols. 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 clearly says it's ok to eat whatever is sold in the shops.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake.

1 Corinthians 10:27 goes on to direct us to eat whatever is served up to us:

If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake.

So why the concern about halal? Some Christians believe that Muslims worship a false god, so when meat is killed while prayers to Allah are being said, they believe that this is meat sacrificed to an idol. However, eating halal food should be of no consequence for them given the scriptures about everything being pure and clean.

Titus 1:15-16 states that all things are pure and, just like in Mark 7:15, to not have an offensive attitude which disobeys what God has called us to do, namely to do good works: To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

Funnily enough, Christians are called to be do-gooders ... not to do evil ... not to attack others, not to spread hatred.

Some will argue that it isn't halal they are concerned about, but halal certification. They believe that halal certification adds cost to the product. Considering it costs around $1,000 per annum, it would add very little cost to a product. Many others believe that money from halal certification is used to fund terrorism. On 24 November 2014, political journalist, Malcolm Farr appearing on ABC's Insiders program said: 'to those pig-ignorant droogs who shut down a South Australian business because it had halal certified yoghurt selling to Emirates. What stupid, stupid people! If they really think that this money goes to terrorists, they should stop buying petrol'

Ephesians 2:10 - For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Waging a pork war against Muslims is not a demonstration of Christ's workmanship or the good works he created us for.

It is a pathetic demonstration of racism, xenophobia and hatred. It is anything but showing Christ's love for others. If Christians are so concerned about Muslims forcing their ways onto us, then surely the anti-halal and anti-burqa campaigns are forcing the ways of bigots onto others.

What are these people trying to achieve? Do they honestly think that Muslims will put down their Korans because someone throws a pork sandwich at them? These vile and violent actions will only feed hatred and hostility, and possibly fuel reprisal actions. Such vulgar campaigns only serve to create more problems than they solve.

It should be pointed out that not all Christians believe in attacking Muslims. But for those who do, this disobedience of the bible is more of a threat to Christians than worrying about whether or not a packet of M&M's is halal certified, particularly considering that pastors and other influential people are pushing these bigoted views from their pulpits and Twitter accounts encouraging people to tell lies rather than truth, to have fear rather than faith, to hate rather than love.

Before attacking the speck in your brother's eyes, remove the plank in your own.



Other articles

This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising or attacking Islam. Other articles include:

• Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity 
• Was Muhammad a pedophile?
• The light of love and a bushell of bigotry 
• Religion of Peace & Love?

Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity

This article is a continuation of the theme regarding how hypocritical it is to criticise Islam, particularly when the criticism comes from Christians. People should remove the plank in their own eye before looking at the speck in someone else's eye.

This article addresses the attacks on Islam regarding lying. Funnily enough, a number of the critics that accuse Islam of promoting deceitfulness are actually lying about it by not correctly explaining the conditions under which lying is considered acceptable.

Islam does have a rule, called taqiyya, which allows hiding one's Islamic faith if it means saving one's life. It appears in Sura 16, verse 106 and says:

Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment.

Taqiyya essentially means disimulation or feigning.

There is also the concept of kitman, which is lying by omission.

One could go into an entire expository just on taqiyya and kitman, but in essence, lying is only permitted in the following circumstances:

• within marriage to keep the peace 
• between tribes/nations to keep the peace 
• to save one's life, so for instance saying they are not a believer - however, their heart has to still be towards Allah

In each occasion, it is in relation to keeping peace or saving lives. Not all Muslims agree with this and believe that those who use taqiyya are afraid of man when they should be afraid of Allah.

Taqiyya is not mandatory. It is not a requirement that needs to be fulfilled. In fact, the Koran condemns lying. For instance:

Sura 2:42 - And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it] Sura 78:35 - No ill speech will they hear therein (in heaven) or any falsehood

Sura 39:3 - Unquestionably, for Allah is the pure religion. And those who take protectors besides Him [say], "We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position." Indeed, Allah will judge between them concerning that over which they differ. Indeed, Allah does not guide he who is a liar and [confirmed] disbeliever.

However, let's look at whether Christians who accuse Muslims of lying may in fact need to look a little closer afield, say at their own bible.

Firstly, there are numerous scriptures in the bible that demand truth, such as:

Proverbs 12:17 - He who speaks truth declares righteousness, But a false witness, deceit.

Proberbs 12:19-20 - The truthful lip shall be established forever, But a lying tongue is but for a moment. Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, But counselors of peace have joy

Proverbs 12:22 - Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.

In Proverbs 6:16 - 19 -  a lying tongue is one of the seven things listed as an abomination to God, as is bearing false witness and sowing discord amongst the brethren.

Yet, the bible contains a number of instances of where lying not only happened, but the liars were blessed by God.

In John 7:8-10, Jesus appears to lie by telling his disciples that he is not going to a feast. Once they leave, he does go to the feast in disguise. There are numerous Christian apologists who will explain this, but I'm not going to expound on context or justification because many of the people who accuse Islam of promoting lying do not give Muslims the opportunity to expound, explain or justify.

Numbers 23:19 states 'God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?'. Some versions translate 'repent' as 'change His mind', so why would Jesus (God incarnate) have said one thing to his disciples and done another?

Peter, the disciple upon whom the church is built, lied about knowing Christ in order to save his own life. In Islam this would be called taqiyya. In Mark 14:66-72, Peter denies knowing Christ three times to avoid being arrested and crucified. In verse 71 he even swears: 'Then he began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak" '. The story is recounted in the other gospels as well: Luke 22:54-62, Matthew 26:69-75 and John 18:15-18.

Although the bible is emphatic on the fate that awaits liars, Peter was the rock on which the church was built. In fact, not just the rock but he would also be given the keys to heaven. In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus says to Peter: 'And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven'. Things may have turned out differently if Peter hadn't lied, yet God still saw fit to build His church on a man whose survival is directly related to lying about his relationship with Jesus.

Even Abraham, (the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), lied to save his life and his wife in Genesis 12:11-13 in which he asked his wife Sarah to tell Pharaoh that she was his sister, not his wife. God plagued Pharaoh for taking a married woman, not Abraham for lying about it. In verse 18, Pharaoh says to Abraham, 'why did you not tell me that she was your wife?'

Abraham did exactly the same thing later on in Genesis 20 in which he told King Abimelech that Sarah was his sister. Abimelech learns that she is actually married to Abraham, at which point, Abraham reveals that he is telling half the truth because Sarah is his half-sister (the daughter of his father, but with a different mother). Again, he told the lie to save his own life (verse 11 - Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.

Abraham's son, Isaac did exactly the same thing to King Abimelech that Abraham had done. Like father, like son. In Genesis 26:6-7 - So Isaac dwelt in Gerar. And the men of the place asked about his wife. And he said, “She is my sister”; for he was afraid to say, “She is my wife,” because he thought, “lest the men of the place kill me for Rebekah, because she is beautiful to behold.”. 

Liars both, yet God blessed Abraham and Isaac.

How does Abraham and Isaac lying to save their own lives on multiple occasions, differ to taqiyya?

Isaac is later deceived by his wife Rebekah and his second son, Jacob.

In Genesis 27, Isaac is on his deathbed and asks his first son Esau to hunt some game for him and prepare savoury food from it. After this, Isaac was going to bless Esau with his inheritance as the first-born. Isaac had poor eye-sight, so Rebekah encouraged Jacob to deceive his father in order to receive the blessing that was about to be imparted on Esau. Jacob was concerned that if Abraham realised this, he would be cursed for the hoax. Rebekah then tells him to dress up as Esau. Jacob even lied about how God had helped him hunt the game so quickly (verse 20: But Isaac said to his son, “How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son?” And he (Jacob) said, “Because the Lord your God brought it to me.”)

Isaac smelled a rat and asked Jacob a number of times if he was really Esau. He even felt him, but Jacob had used the skin of a goat to mimic Esau's hirsuteness. Isaac then blessed him and Esau lost his inheritance. Jacob went on to become a key figure in the bible. Esau not so much.

Isaac deceived Abraham into his inheritance.

In Joshua 2:3-6, Rahab the prostitute hides two spies from the King of Jericho. When he asks her about the location of the spies she lies: 'So the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the country.” Then the woman took the two men and hid them. So she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And it happened as the gate was being shut, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you may overtake them.” 6 (But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof.)'

Some have likened Rahab's actions to those of people in World War 2 who lied to the Nazis in order to hide Jews from their genocidal actions. Again, how is this different to taqiyya? It is lying to save lives. Would Christians lie if Nazis came to the house looking for an innocent person to kill?

The apostle Paul claims that he became 'all things to all men'. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - 'For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.  Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.'

Some Christians accuse Muslims of using taqiyya in order to win converts to Islam. Yet how are Paul's actions any different? Paul may not directly lie, but he takes on the persona of the people that he is with in order to win converts to Christ.

Not everyone gets away with lying in the bible. Ananias and Sapphira for example, lied about proceeds that they should have given to the Apostles to distribute. According to the verses in Acts 5:1-11, God struck down the couple for lying.

Both the Koran and the bible, at their core, condemn lying with the results that liars and hypocrites will face punishment.

Sura 24:7 - the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars.

Revelation 21:8 - '... all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death'.

For Islam, lying is haraam (forbidden) and is explained in detail at http://www.al-islam.org/greater-sins-volume-2-ayatullah-sayyid-abd-al-husayn-dastghayb-shirazi/seventeenth-greater-sin-lying#5-liar-accursed

To claim that Islam is a religion of lies, that it condones lying is in itself deceitful and a lie. For Christians, it is even hypocritical given the number of times that lying is at the core of critical events in the bible even though the bible also clearly states that lying is not allowed.

The church was founded on Peter, even though he lied about knowing Christ in order to save his life. Three religions are founded on Abraham who lied twice about his relationship with his wife in order to save his life.

Even today, many Christians believe in a lie that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions. The lie: Zionism. Zionism was founded on the lie of 'land without a people for people without a land'. Apart from the fact that millions have lived in Palestine for thousands of years so it was not a 'land without people'. Apart from the fact that the Europeans who stole the land had countries of their own that they already lived in (namely various European nations), so they were not a 'people without a land'. Zionist Christians idolise, almost worship, Israel. Zionism is a sub-cult of Christianity and it is a lie. Why would God send Jesus to save the Jews, crucify him, resurrect him ... if He is then going to re-establish a Christ-less Israel? Jesus was the fulfilment of prophecy, not 20^th century Israel. But why let truth get in the way of imperialism.

As has been stated in our other studies, Christians, of all people, should not be criticising Islam. Some Christians will be offended by the contents of this article, yet will have no qualms about offending Muslims by accusing Islam and the Koran of condoning lying. This is hypocritical.

Instead of criticising Islam, Christians should take the plank out their own eye. Do as Jesus commanded: love your neighbour!

--0--

Other articles

This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising Islam. Other articles include:

• Bacon and dregs - Pork wars and Christianity
• Was Muhammad a pedophile?
• The light of love and a bushell of bigotry
• Religion of Peace and Love