Let's Call a Spade a Spade

26/3/2019

Issue 4, Semester 1, 2019

ANONYMOUS

Content warning: This article contains material referring to the recent Christchurch attacks.

I have been putting off writing anything about the attack on the mosques in Christchurch. Solely because it takes me back to some excruciatingly painful memories. Memories I wish I never had to experience.

Image: Reuters/Jorge Silva

The sight of men running up the street, with blood stained shirts, looking for help in 2003 in Quetta, Pakistan, will haunt me forever. I remember feeling utterly hopeless and distraught at the sight. I did not realise what was happening. The sight of the thick black smoke in the sky was not common. I knew something had happened. I was too young to understand what.

On 23 June 2003, four gunmen had entered a mosque, on a Friday, and shot and killed about 70 men as they performed their congregational prayers. A bomb had followed. Another 200 people were injured.

The attacks continue to date, albeit the manners have changed. Occasionally it is a bomb blast on a university bus, a target attack on a school, a bomb on a protest or fires shot at vegetable sellers, attack on the only Olympic gold medallist.

Or a snooker club bombed, where 110 men died in a single bomb blast. That’s double the Christchurch victim numbers, in a few minutes.

In February 2013, a school and market were attacked, 210 people, mainly children and women were killed, with a bomb brought in a water tank. Twenty-seven of these people were never found.

This is why my family left everything behind to come to Australia.

And for the first time in my life in Australia, I felt a similarly chilling fear in my bones. I regularly overlook my shoulders in the university’s prayer room. The fear is not unfamiliar. But it scares my adult self as it scared the 10-year-old child.

The sort of hate that caused people to kill the way they do in Quetta, in Somalia, in Pittsburgh and in Christchurch are not too distant. It does not happen in one night. I also know from experience that people do not start hating overnight. It is years of hard work. It is years of making us fear the other. Othering those that look different or practice a different faith.

People do not plan to carry out such atrocities overnight. It starts with subtle alienation. It starts with remaining indifferent to what happens to them. It starts when human vulnerability is used as political agendas. It starts when an entire community is used as a political football. It starts when the highest leaders in this country diminish an entire community to an illness.

It is worsened when perpetrators are labelled a ‘lone wolf’, ‘angelic boy’ or ‘bullied child’. It is worsened when the media selfishly has double standards.

Let us start calling whoever terrorises the minds and hearts of our communities what they really are, a terrorist. Let us also call out the ideologies they follow what they are Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, white supremacy and Xenophobia.

Anonymous is a Third Year JD Student.

Other articles in this issue:

The only thing we have to fear

26/3/2019 04:02:19 pm

Think of the fear you have now, and then try to imagine the level of fear people had after 9/11, Bali, Nice, The Bataclan, and so on. I have to question why it is only now ‘for the first time in your life’ you feel fear of terrorist attacks in Australia.

Did you not think of yourself as a target before?

26/3/2019 04:31:56 pm

wtf is this comment

hmm emoji

26/3/2019 04:34:49 pm

none of those attacks occurred in Australia...

Geography master

26/3/2019 10:25:42 pm

Christchurch isn’t in Australia either you know

attention to detail

26/3/2019 10:35:25 pm

And the attacker was from...?

The devil is in

27/3/2019 08:27:46 am

The same place as Man Haron Monis

Reading lesson #99

28/3/2019 11:10:03 pm

"inappropriately not only questioning but stating with prejudice and disapproval that “a lot of muslims’” reactions as you have perceived it is greater for this terrorist incident than others"

The inappropriateness is your contention that Muslims must show level of contrition and sorrow to meet your satisfaction. Effectively "they ain't Australian enough unless they get this upset when Westerners (sic) get massacred too!". Truly pathetic.

Is this contrite enough for you? https://youtu.be/CHruOMihuvk?t=55

Dear Reader

29/3/2019 09:30:55 am

You must have failed the reading comprehension component of the LSAT. You appear to be replying to comments that you have read elsewhere or heard elsewhere when terrorist attacks have occurred which demand contrition from Muslims and have tried to beat my own comments into that mould.

I am not demanding contrition from Muslims, I am questioning why the author only now fears being a victim of a terror attack in Australia given the ubiquitous occurrence of terror attacks in the west, and why this terror attack has upset many people of the Muslims faith, such as the author, to a greater degree than others. If the author feels fear now but did not feel fear before, there must be a reason for that.

Anon

26/3/2019 05:04:04 pm

To the commenter above...

Everyone uses the sorts of public spaces, workplaces, and venues that were subject to the attacks you refer to. The victims of those attacks were from many different communities. But surely you know that? Are you trying to convey some kind of pernicious sub-text that feeds into toxic ideas of 'us' and 'them'?

SICK, Inappropriate

26/3/2019 07:12:45 pm

It’s not a competition.

Impartial

27/3/2019 08:23:54 am

It’s not a competition, but a lot of muslims seem to be far more upset about this terrorist attack than all the others. Why is that?

Try to have some empathy please

27/3/2019 07:01:07 pm

'Impartial', assuming that your assessment of how upset people are in comparison to how upset they have been about other attacks is even correct... imagine if there had been an attack on a law school in NZ, committed by an Australian who wrote a manifesto about hating and killing law students. Imagine that there were others who agreed with him and who were hoping to perpetuate similar attacks. Imagine how much we would be talking about it and how afraid we would feel. I reckon we would be talking about it more than we talked about about other attacks on the nation/community as a whole. And we would probably be talking about it more than students in the medicine or commerce faculties would be. We would relate to the victims, whose experiences would be similar to ours. We would fear for our friends' safety. We would be upset and scared on a deeply personal level because we would know that we, in particular, could be targeted because of who we are. Do you really think your response would be 'impartial' if you as a member of a small, identifiable sub-section of the community who regularly goes to a certain place, feared you might be targeted by terrorists?

(There's tonnes of differences between being a law student and having a religion/faith. This clumsy analogy is only meant to make one point - i.e. of course people have profound personal, emotional responses when communities they're members of are targeted)

Logic > Empathy

27/3/2019 07:39:02 pm

Terrorists have been specifically targeting 'westerners', a relatively small identifiable sub-section of the global community, for decades.

Why would a muslim in a western country have more reason to be afraid of being a target now than they did prior the the attack in Chrustchurch, considering that attacks specifically directed against westerners have been vastly more numerous than attacks against muslims, the number of which have ocurred in 'the west' we can count on less than one fully fingered hand?

The answer must be that they would not have perceived themself as part of the group that was specifically being targeted before now.

@PERSON ABOVE

27/3/2019 08:33:02 pm

YES. Exactly. Where are the reports about all the Christians who are killed every year because of their faith??? Where is the outcry from the media when Christians die at the hands of Islamic terrorists?

give it a break

27/3/2019 08:40:35 pm

"Impartial". Let's break this down.

You assert that muslims (writ large) seem to be "far more upset about this terrorist attack than others".

1) It is an amazing ability you have there to observe the behaviour of all muslims. Well it would be remarkable. But you don't have that ability. Instead you have for some reason, but it is entirely certain it is not an "impartial' reason, made a generalised assertion about an entire group of people who are not a monolithic whole amenable to such generalised assertions anyway. And there is no suggestion of any truth in that assertion that you have made. So what you have done is merely state your prejudice.

2) Even if your assertion were born out, which it cannot be, who the hell do you think you are? Why do you think it is your role to police the reactions people or groups of people have to terrorism? if it's emotional enough? Or outspoken enough? Or they aren't crying enough for certain victims of one group? Or they're crying too much for certain victims of another group? Apart from being completely impossible to ascertain, it's nonsensical to try to police it.

Just go away. Please.

Learn to read

28/3/2019 06:31:05 am

‘A lot of’ does not mean ‘all’.

I am not trying to ‘police’ anyone’s reaction, I am questioning why some people have reacted to this event in a particular way and did not similarly react in the same way to other highly similar events. I’m very sorry that critical thinking makes you so uncomfortable.

Reading

28/3/2019 01:48:28 pm

“A lot of” muslims is still a generalisation of muslims you are unqualified to make, yet you have made purely off prejudice.

You are still inappropriately not only questioning but stating with prejudice and disapproval that “a lot of muslims’” reactions as you have perceived it is greater for this terrorist incident than others. Again, you’re unqualified to make that claim, and really it’s none of your business. Grow up. Don’t demand others’ tears because that suits your politics. Who are you, Kim Jong-Un?

“Inappropriate questioning”

28/3/2019 07:56:41 pm

My most humble apologies Commissar, I will report to my nearest re education centre post haste.

anon

26/3/2019 06:13:27 pm

Everyone agrees that what happened in Christchurch was terrible. But I want to counter that it's not the result of any phobias - it's the result of politicians making people feel unheard and marginalised. In the shooter's manifesto, he says that while growing up he witnessed numerous instances of violence by Muslims and so he came to view Islam immigration as a threat to Western civilisation. However, he noticed that whenever someone criticised Islam, they were immediately shut down as 'racists' and 'bigots' and so he viewed speech as being futile. If you continue to silence people and make them feel marginalised, what do you think will happen? They turn to violence because they think that is the only way they will be heard, the only way they can make a change.

Exasperated Sigh

26/3/2019 06:46:24 pm

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that society should be more willing to allow people to use their 'free speech' in order to perpetrate ideologies of racism, bigotry and prejudice in general so that they are not 'shut down and marginalised'? Even when there is no room for extremist views (of any kind) in any society wishing to live peacefully?

I think the point being made in this article is to understand how people of power, and especially people in political power, have the capacity to send messages across society of racism/bigotry/prejudice/non-acceptance, which can lead to such 'marginalised' groups to develop a support system and alternative community of like-minded people with extremist views that favour the development of particular groups over others (e.g. white supremacists).

However, I will say that the ignorant and presumptuous thoughts giving rise to extremist views require deliberative attention rather than simply being 'shut down'.

Change is only possible if the educated are willing to help the ignorant out of their abyss.

Different anon

26/3/2019 06:53:57 pm

It is truly mind-boggling that you have read the words of a terrorist who killed 50 innocent people and decided that a narrative which depicts him as some kind of victim who just wanted to 'be heard' is convincing and worth repeating.

If you defend free speech, why don't you celebrate people's right to argue that others have been racist or bigoted? Isn't that speech too? And how have people who (to use your euphemistic phrase) 'criticise Islam', been 'silenced' when they include senators, radio and television shows hosts, prolific newspaper columnists, and the President of the United States?

Cart before horse

26/3/2019 07:19:56 pm

It is reprehensible views that rightfully get condemnation. Not condemnation that springs forth new reprehensible views.

What you’re really wanting is a right to express reprehensible views without others having the right to reply (with condemnation if they like). Sorry, no.

confused

26/3/2019 07:41:12 pm

Um but why is it racist to raise legitimate issues about Islam? Why is one a bigot because they point out that there is a clear conflict between Western civilisation and Islam?

no wonder you're confused

27/3/2019 06:18:02 am

@CONFUSED

Raising 'legitimate issues' about any subject (let alone Islam) is not the problem. But demonising someone's religion/culture/race is. The latter is irrational. Millions of people live in what you have called 'Western civilisation', and they don't experience any 'clear conflict' between it and Islam. So it is little wonder that one is thought of as a bigot when one worries about a paranoid and non-existent 'clear conflict'. Indeed, such a one would not be far from the Christchurch lunatic's school of thought. That should be worrying for any reasonable person.

Big Robbo

27/3/2019 12:41:29 pm

Generally, people who criticize Islam when terrorist attacks occur are unable to understand the fact that there is nothing inimical to Islam that causes terrorism. The critical issue comes into play at the point where Islamic beliefs become radicalized to the point of terrorism.

The same problem is inherent in virtually every religion, even if some aspects of those religions lend more easily into radicalization.

Nobody is trying to shut people like this out of the conversation simply because they hold challenging beliefs, they are shut out of the conversation because they are in a continual state of cognitive dissonance (in other words, stupid).

And they should be shut out of the conversation. If they aren't willing to come into the debate with a basic understanding of how to solve the problem, admission to the debate is pointless.

Sigh

27/3/2019 09:04:02 pm

It doesn't matter whether Islam is a religion of peace or not. What matters is that the number of radicalised Muslims is significant (https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx).

Nothing is solved by taking away freedom of speech. If you think someone is stupid or their opinion is incorrect, you should counter with logical arguments, not shut them down with names like 'racist' and 'bigot' etc.

Dear Sigh

27/3/2019 10:12:17 pm

What you need to understand is that it is sometimes rational, logical... and accurate to describe certain views as racist or bigoted. It's not "shutting you down". It's labeling those views, critiquing and criticising them. Because we have a system where you are entitled to say your views, and we are entitled to criticize them. If you find many people call your views racist and bigoted, maybe reflect and think whether, in fact, your views are racist and bigoted. The approach whereby you attempt to ban people calling certain views racist or bigoted, because calling views racist or bigoted "shuts down free speech"... well can't you see the irony that you are trying to shut down free speech yourself? You're trying to force through that your views cannot be criticized as being racist or bigoted. You're trying to force us to accept your view that your views aren't racist or bigoted... or else if we truly believe to the contrary, to shut up about it. All while wrapping yourself in the flag of "free speech". Maybe learn to accept criticism of your views.

BIG RESPONSE to 'sigh' from BIG ROBBO

27/3/2019 11:31:51 pm

I take issue with your claim that nothing is solved from shutting out freedom of speech. I think that people should have the right to speak their mind as they please. I also think that when people are participating in a constructive activity, that people who engage in destructive activity whilst purporting to be constructive should be restrained from participation.

So, if you are trying to discuss what should be done about Islamic terrorism, for instance, and someone says something to the effect of "(w)hat matters is that the number of radicalised Muslims is significant". Whether that statement is destructive or not depends on context. If the statement insinuates that the number of radicalised Muslims in respect of other religions indicates that Islam is a religion that inherently propagates terrorism, then that statement completely misses the critical point of the discussion, and can be destructive. A person becomes destructive in such a discussion when they refuse to acknowledge or does not want to acknowledge the logical faults in that insinuation. Is there any constructive reason to keep that person in the debate? I certainly can't find one that aids in that activity.

EXTENDED SIGH

28/3/2019 12:05:43 am

Um no. You clearly missed the point. You are entitled to criticise and rebut with legitimate, logical arguments. No one is saying you can't criticise someone's views. What you shouldn't be able to do is shout down someone just because they disagree with you and yell that they're a racist, a bigot, a white supremacist etc.

Literally no one is forcing you to accept my views. What IS forcing someone to accept your views is to completely dismiss someone's argument by yelling names at them. It is attacking the person rather than addressing the issues that they raise. Gosh are we in primary school? You are the true bigot if you think that anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't be able to express their opinion without being personally attacked and called every -ist/-phobe word in the English language.

And no. As a matter of fact most people do not find my opinions to be offensive.

Dear Extended Sigh

28/3/2019 01:36:07 am

You strawmanned my position. It may be your perception, but it is a wrong perception, that I call every person I disagree with a racist or a bigot. If you need them, put on your glasses, and read my above comment more carefully. Your argument is not in good faith if you read the comment correctly.

here we go!

26/3/2019 09:52:36 pm

Aaaaand the Nutcase Olympic Games begin in the comments section.

This is why we can't have nice discussions

27/3/2019 01:19:49 am

Maybe we can try to systematise everything here that needs to be said.

1. Violence against innocent people is abhorrent

2. Any ideology which encourages violence against innocent people to fulfil its ideology should be reviled

3. Concern about the harms of any system; whether it is political, religious, socio-economic, etc; should be a) stratified according to levels of severity of the threats posed by different intensities of that system, and b) proportional to the threat posed by any given strata

That is to say that for example, your aggregate concern toward a political system that contains any degree of systemic racism should not be equivalent to your concern toward white supremacy, and your aggregate concern toward a given religion should not be equivalent toward your concern for extremist theocracy

4. Nobody is suggesting that legitimate concerns either toward systemic racist qualities of a political system, or systemic problems with fundamentalist religious ideology should be nullified any time that one given group is the target of violence.

5. In the aftermath of a tragedy, it is in quite poor taste to revert to a partisan defence of one side of the debate instead of recognising a shared human solidarity in the experience of grief and suffering.

All of which is to say that nobody is suggesting that terrorism is ever justified, and that we can all recognise that ideological extremes, whether religious fundamentalism or racial supremacy, are clearly evil, regardless of whatever the most recent event happens to have been in recurring cycles of violence. BUT maybe we can have the basic decency to just stand in support and solidarity in recognition of the experience of fear and misery whenever it is appropriate, without our first instinct being to start barracking for one side in a game of argumentative football.

JUST SAYING

28/3/2019 12:23:44 am

Was merely expressing my opinion that the reason for the attack probably wasn't 'Islamophobia' and 'Xenophobia'. Also was not defending the shooter - what he did was terrible and wrong.

@JUST SAYING

28/3/2019 02:13:12 pm

Bro, did you even follow the news?

The 70-something page manifesto clearly stated islamophobic motivations and reverence of political figures that support xenophobia (you know who). Maybe go get twitter or something so you have a good grasp of news issues before commenting in a public forum.

@person above

28/3/2019 10:09:42 pm

Bro, he said many things in his manifesto and most of it was sarcasm/trolling. And those politcal figures aren't even Islamophobic or xenophobic??? Just because they have problems with Islam as a religion doesn't make them Islamophobic??? Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read on Twitter.

Seriously?

29/3/2019 09:11:04 am

Someone murders 50 people in a terrorist attack and you attribute his words of hatred for those people to ‘trolling’ or ‘sarcasm’!? Are you trying to somehow excuse this terrorist and attempting to make his despicable motivations sound understandable or palatable?

Also, how can targeting one group be anything other than an expression of hatred of that group? If your narrative was correct and this was motivated by frustration at ‘politicians’ making the terrorist feel ‘unheard’, why were Muslim families praying at a mosque the target? This terrorism was clearly motivated by white supremacist ideas including Islamophobia and xenophobia.

29/3/2019 09:15:41 am

Just to clarify, this was a reply to '@personabove'

Comments are closed.

Let's Call a Spade a Spade

Archives