All these protests will just fuel stereotypes further

Protests on the anti-Islamic film reached Sydney (Image source: Wiki Commons)

So the worldwide protest about a silly film has reached Sydney.

Following on from my previous post, I am amazed at how much outrage a poorly made anti-Islamic film can spire into so much destruction and hatred against the US and the west in general.

Most of the protests and violence has been against the United States (US), where in many North African, Middle Eastern and some Asian countries, thousands of Muslims have taken to the streets near the US embassies protesting against the anti-Islamic film. But this fury has extended to Sydney, Australia last Saturday,  when a few hundred mostly young Muslim men and some mothers and their children began a violent protest in anger over the film.

As I have already said in a post I wrote last week, that I do not support the message of the film that has inspired this global protest by the Muslim community, however I do condemn all the attacks against innocent individuals with no links to the film.

The violent protest last Saturday in Sydney, were not even aimed at the US, as the event happened no where near the US consulate.

The violence was perpetrated by a group of young Muslims, and many of the leaders of major Islamic organisationsin Sydney have since stated thatthe attacks are un-Islamic and are condoned by majority of Muslims.

In the past few days since the protest in Sydney, there have beenhundreds of hate letters been sent to the Islamic communities  by racistindividuals or groups. I think that this short of action is not helpful and inflames further hatred and bigotry in society. Revenge for certain past actions just recycles anger and violence.

An open letter written by Peter FitzSimons summed up the consequence of this action in Australia well: "the net result of such irresponsible, appalling action is to give ample fuel to every racist in the country to reinforce every bad stereotype they have ever had of <Muslims>, and that will affect badly the hundreds of thousands of other peaceful and law-abiding Islamic Australians?"

What needs to happen now is for all people of all faiths, to cooperate to stamp out religious bigotry and hatred, as to prevent further violence.       

Why all this Religious Hatred?

Image source:  http://thegoldguys.blogspot.com.au/

This week we have witnessed more  anti-American attacks in Benghazi, Libya and in Cairo, Egypt. The U.S Consulate was attacked by a group of people who stormed the compound  shooting at staff inside, which three U.S officials were killed including the Ambassador; a crowd in Cairo were protesting outside the U.S Embassy, but there are currently no reports of any casualties. 

The reported reasons for these attacks were in protest and outrage against a low budget film, Innocence of Muslims, which portrays prophet Muhammad in bad terms,emphasising him as been gay and a fraud. The film is claimed to be made by a man calling him self Sam Bacile, an Israeli-American living in the U.S, although this information has not yet been proven, as there has been no Sam Bacile found. In a  telephone  interview with the Wall Street Journal, he claimed Islam to be "a cancer."   

The film has outraged large sections of the world’s Muslim population, which is understandable as the film does offend the Islamic faith. If anyone ever makes an offensive film against the Christians, Buddhists, Hindu and other world religions, the rest of us would be equally furious.

Although I do not support the film and its portrayal in any way, but I think that the three US officials killed in Libya did not deserve to be targeted because of the action of one man or any other people involved in the production of the film.

What we need today and for the future is to be more culturally and religiously tolerant towards each other no matter what faith one practices. These recent incidents and past ones remind us of the stupidity of religious hatred that does not solve any problems, but just brings harm to the world. 

The Spectacle of the American presidential election Campaign has Officially Began

Over the last few weeks we have witnessed the official start to the 2012 presidential elections in the United States of America (USA). Both the Republican and Democratic parties have held their National Conventions to officially nominate their candidates for President and vice-President. 

The purpose of these conventions is to allow delegates from each party a chance to nominate their candidate, who will contest in the Presidential election in November, and for the adoption of the party platform, which is the statement of principles and policy proposals for the campaign.

This year, the Democrats have nominated President Barack Obama and the Republican Party has nominated Mitt Romney, after he won the parties State Primary Elections earlier this year. The Conventions are held every four years, a few months before the November General Election. They last for about four days with much of this time taken up by official party business and proceedings as well as key note speakers and other party officials, whom the chance to speak in support of the nominated candidate.

I am not from the USA, and I am amazed by the amount of money spent and the Hollywood style Spectacle that the National Conventions have become. At this year’s Conventions a number of Hollywood stars have came out of the wood work in support of the candidates and their parties. The Republican Party had Hollywood film star and producer Clint Eastwood,  and the Democrats had the services of film star Scarlett Johansson. All of these speeches by the candidates and their supporters were toped off by a concert like atmosphere with in the venues, with some of the the biggest musical bands and singers in America performing at the conventions    

After watching some of the coverage of the Conventions and the election process in general, I feel that American society and politics thrives on an over the top patriotic spectacle.

From my knowledge, no other country spends as much money or time campaigning to elect a leader. This years election is predicted to cost the individual parties and candidates about one billion dollars, with most coming from corporate and public donations.

In Australia, elections are cheap compared to the US. I don’t think Federal elections in Australia cost even any where near one hundred million dollars. Although the long time spent officially campaigning is due to how the US political system works, especially for the party not holding office, but surely over two years is a little excessive. Romney as the contending candidate had to start campaigning over two years ago, if not longer. He had to first contest the Republican Party Primaries, to be elected the parties candidate, and now needs to campaign against Obama to became President.

I personally think that all that money and effort to elect a President could be spent trying to solve the many problems that American society face.

For Information about the US Election system see the link below:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30527.pdf            

About that 'boat people ad'

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post criticising the Australian governments policy of reopening the immigration centres on Nauru and Manus Islands. Since then the government has launched a advertising initiative on YouTube to compliment the return to offshore processing of asylum seekers.

The initiative is to distribute an advert on You Tube and in DVD format, telling asylum seekers that arriving by boat will not give them or their families an advantage over those arriving legally or been processed in refugee camps. The advert will be translated into seven different languages and  be distributed on line and through Australian Embassies.

In my view, processing asylum seekers offshore and distributing a YouTube advertising will not prevent asylum seekers coming by boat to Australia. Even if the ad is translated in to seven different languages, most of the people being targeted by this ad will probably not have access to a computer or the internet to view this ad. Not to mention it has cost us a lot of money to produce.

Like the decision to open the Pacific Solution, this is just another band-aid solution to a complicated issue.

Australian forces need to stay in Afghanistan

Five Australian soldiers died last week; three were killed this week in a patrol base in the Oruzgan province in Afghanistan by a rogue Afghan soldier, and two were killed in a separate unrelated helicopter crash in Southern Afghanistan. The incident at the patrol base, known as a ‘green on blue’ attack by international forces, reopened the debate around the continuing mission of Australian forces in Afghanistan. 

Every time an Australian soldier is killed, especially by a Afghan soldier, debates and opinions are all over the media on the question whether Australian forces should leave early or stay until 2014 as planned, with some arguing that Australia should have not got involved in this mission in the first place, and that we should pull out all of our troops as soon as possible. 

On the other side of the debate, many defence experts, including former soldiers, as well asthe members of both the Liberal and Labour parties, argue that Australia needs to stay. Australia joined the NATO led mission back in 2001 for the purpose of removing terrorist groups and the Taliban from Afghanistan. Australia’s main mission has been to train the Afghan National Army (ANA), so that they can take over security in Oruzgan province, when Australian forces leave at the end of 2014.

In my opinion, while  the threat of terrorism around the world has not disappeared because of the continuing mission in Afghanistan, there was justification for Australia in committing troops to the international mission in the first place. 

Afghanistan had been the safe haven for terrorist groups like al-Quada, who are not native to Afghanistan, and who were perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in New York. Their radical methods have caused both local Afghanis and the international communities pain and suffering with their fundamental ideas. Thus as a committed member of the international community, we are obliged to participate in the mission to remove terrorist groups who attacked our international partners.

If Australia cut and run and leave our Afghan Army partners half trained, likely chance the Taliban would return to power. Instead, we should maintain our current troop numbers and finish the mission that we started, not just for a better future for the Afghan people, but also in respect for the diggers who have already lost their lives, showing that their deaths were not in vein.

Julian Assange: what a fuss

The on going case against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, which has been dragging on for more then a year, does not seem to be ending, because after taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past few months, Assange has finally been granted political asylum by the Ecuadorian government. What this means is that Assange could escape from being extradited to Sweden to answer alligations of rape by Swedish prosecutors if he is granted permission to leave the Ecuadorian embassy and travel to Ecuador. The catch is, the British authorities will not allow Assange to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London, saying that waiting police will arrest him if he tries to leave.

Outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London

This case goes back to 2011, when Swedish prosecutors filed extradition proceedings in Britain. After months of High court deliberation, Sweden was given permission to extradite Assange; but before they could take him into custody, he entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London claiming asylum. Assange is seeking political asylum in Ecuador, because he claims that the United States (U.S) will try to extradite him to America once he is sent to Sweden, as he claims the case against him is politically motivated, although the U.S government deny there is a case against him or want to extradite him to America. Law experts in Sweden also say that under the current law, they can not extradite anyone if they either face the death penalty or a case is politically motivated.

In my opinion, if Assange is not guilty of rape, which he has been accused of by two Swedish women, he should go to Stockholm and fight against the charges. All this fuss over the last few months seems to me that he could perhaps be guilty of the charges. On the claims by Assange and his supports, that U.S authorities will try to extradite him to America after he arrives in Sweden, to be some what strange, as I would have thought, the U.S would have as much chance of  extraditing him from Britain, as in Sweden.

It's possible, that the case against Assange in this context, has nothing to do with Wikileaks, after all. If he is not guilty, then go and prove it himself that he is indeed a decent human being just trying to do the world good.

Another Bad Asylum Seeker Policy by the Australian Government

Last week, the Gillard government, in my opinion, came up with a terrible asylum seeker policy, which is to  reinstate some of the former Liberal government’s ‘Pacific solution’ policies by reopening immigration detention centers on Nauru and Manus Island. Julia Gillard contacted Nauru with a formal request to resume asylum-seeker processing, on the advice from the expert panel on asylum seeker policies. 

I think that opting for a return to offshore detention is not sound policy by the government, but rather very desperate way to curtail to opposition pressure and a need for voting approval by the public. Sending asylum seekers to Nauru and Manus Island, out of view of the media and the public would not necessarily stop asylum seekers paying people smugglers for a passage to Australia. If people are that desperate to come to Australia in search for a better life, a few months or years on Nauru or Manus Island would probably not deter them, as last time an Australian government went to this much expense and effort to stop the boats, around 70 percent of Asylum seekers detained on Nauru and Manus Islands were eventually allowed to settle in Australia and New Zealand any way.         

Former PrimeMinister Malcolm Fraser offered a submission to the expert panel on asylumseeker policies, arguing that reopening centres on Nauru and Manus island in PNG, is a short term way of dealing with such an issue. He further stated in his that sending asylum seekers to these centres is costly in the long run and also no long term evidence that it stops the arrival of boats. He also argued that the Australian government should invest in joint cooperation with Malaysia and Indonesia to open more United Nations (UN) operated centres in these two countries. 

This would be a better solution as most asylum seekers use both Malaysia and Indonesia as a stepping stone to come to Australia. So investing in a joint UN and regional solution could prevent people paying smugglers lots of money to risk their lives and their families to travel to Australia, instead their claims could be processed even before leaving either Malaysia or Indonesia.