Category Archives: Politics and society

Islam, Politics and society, Prejudice

So, what’s the problem with Racism?

Leave a comment

Throughout my life, along with most people in western society, I have been taught that racism is bad. That idea is so ingrained that I never question it. Of course it’s bad! It goes without saying. But with the increased fear of violent extremism and terrorist attack I have seen a rise in racist commentary on social media. Often this commentary has been shared by people that I count as friends and know to be good people. We have a tendency to address racism with a label and an assumption that the person espousing it is just a bad person. But this shuts down the debate and simply indulges our feelings of righteousness without even an attempt to understand or change minds. So I have found myself analysing my own opposition to racism and why I feel that way.

I am a white anglo male, and so by a quirk of genetics and history have found myself on the privileged side of this issue. I have only ever lived in white Anglo majority countries and so have never experienced racism directed at me and am unlikely to. So when I am told by the media that me and my loved ones are in danger from extremists, doesn’t it make sense to ban Muslims from entering our countries? Doesn’t it make sense to put the ones that are currently here on a register so that we can monitor them? Yes I know these ideas are racist and will make the lives of those people miserable and possibly put them in danger, but on the balance of risk for me personally, does it makes sense and is it worth it to protect the people that I love? So why am I opposed to racism on such an instinctive level? Am I just a really good person who cares about all the people of the world, while others are just nasty and purely selfish? I find that hard to believe. So I found myself thinking about the history of the issue and the implications of unchecked racism for me, a white Anglo male in a predominantly white Anglo country.

Racism is a form of prejudice, which is defined by my dictionary app as, amongst other things “unreasonable feelings, opinions or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious or national group”. Over many years our culture has evolved to consider such feeling bad, we have laws against acting on such feelings. Why is this so? The answer is because it is better for everyone. While it is true that the recent terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated against the west have been carried out by people identifying as Muslim, this is a single characteristic amongst many characteristics of these people. 30 years ago, most if not all, terrorist attacks carried out in the UK were by Irish Catholics, but it was never true that all Irish people, or all Catholics were terrorists. It’s a characteristic amongst many. And if we use this one characteristic to single out people for special treatment such as refused entry into our country, for monitoring or incarceration we set a precedent. 
From that moment onwards it becomes acceptable to single out a person based on a single characteristic for special treatment, and that’s when it becomes my problem. Because while I’m a white Anglo male, I do fall into some minority groups, as do the people I love, everyone does. Whether it be people with tattoos, short people, tall people, gay or transgender people, atheist people, people that don’t drink coffee, vegetarians, or people that don’t like sport. We are all a minority somehow and as soon as we make it OK to accuse an individual based on a characteristic such as race or religion then we make it acceptable to accuse someone based on any characteristic it takes our fancy to pick. How long before they come for you or your loved ones. 

The recent election has seen Pauline Hanson reenter the Australian senate. Pauline wants to ban Muslim people from entering Australia, as she did with Asian people prior to that. Now let’s look at a scenario where Pauline becomes Prime Minister. Muslim people get banned from entering Australia. Australia will still have problems and so Pauline turns the blame onto any foreigner who is still in the country, and throws them all out. But Australia still has problems because it wasn’t foreigners causing the problems, and so Pauline has to find someone else to blame. If she doesn’t people will blame out leaders. Who’s next? Hitler didn’t stop with the Jews, he rounded up and locked away the polish, the Roma, the homeless, the mentally and physically disabled, the idle, the homosexual, and many others. Eventually, characteristics will get made up as an excuse to target anyone who disagrees or may cause trouble for the person or people in power. 

“Now come on Barry, who’s being paranoid now?” I hear you say. If we ban Muslims from entering the country right now, what is the chance that it will escalate into another holocaust? My answer is, very high! Because we have so many examples from history when this has happened, the holocaust is just one example, and not even a recent one. In fact, it happens more often than not. Why do you think we have the laws that we have to protect us against prejudice? They were not a result of some people sitting around abstractly thinking about what might happen, they were a reaction to what has happened time and time again. Human nature and the nature of people in power means it will most likely happen, without mechanisms to ensure that it doesn’t. 

So my opposition to racism is not a result of me being a super good person who cares about others more than everyone else, my opposition is because I care about myself and my loved ones and I want to protect the very privileged and comfortable lives that we enjoy. To treat all Muslims as terrorists is to remove the safeguards that prevent our countries becoming like the ones that so many refugees are trying to escape! In a country where you can be persecuted due to a characteristic such as race, religion, sexuality or opinion. Unless you are the person in power, you risk being the persecuted. 

The values that our society is built on are not “nice to haves”, they are absolutely essential to our way of life.

Politics and society

In defense of Political Correctness.

Leave a comment

I have read a number of statements recently in response to terrorist attacks proclaiming “this is not a time for political correctness” or in the case of Rupert Murdoch recently after claiming that all Muslims must be held responsible for Jihadist attacks, “Political Correctness makes for denial and hypocrisy”. Political Correctness has become a toxic term often used by the right as an attack on left wing ideas. It is a general criticism of anyone proposing a modest viewpoint or trying to avoid attacking or apportioning blame to a specific group within a community. So what is modern political correctness and is it a bad thing?

In its modern sense the term Political Correctness arose in response to progressive ideas about education, multiculturalism, racism, homophobia, etc. Herbert Kohl proposes that the political right’s use of the term is “to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.” (Uncommon Differences: On Political Correctness, Core Curriculum and Democracy in Education – June 1992 ). This seems to fit with my experience of the term.

Modern Political Correctness is typified by the belief that women shouldn’t be objectified, that an entire race shouldn’t be blamed for the crimes of individuals, that we shouldn’t make fun of the characteristics of a certain sub group within the community and that we shouldn’t deliberately say things that upset others sensitivities.

On the one hand I am in favor of Political Correctness when detailed as I have above. I do not believe that anyone should be a target for discrimination due to their race, gender, sexual persuasion or political position. I think that society has demonstrated that often what would once have been labelled Political Correctness is now considered societal norm. More and more people in the western world are outraged if they witness a woman being treated as a second class citizen, or witness blatant racism. Recently Professor Barry Spurr was suspended from the University of Sydney after emails were leaked from him containing racist, sexually abusive and generally discriminatory language. I support Professor Barry Spurr’s right to express his opinion in any way he wishes, but I equally support the rights of anyone who wishes to take issue with and criticise his opinion and also the rights of the University of Sydney to not want to be associated with a person who holds those opinions.

On the other hand, I believe that “Political Correctness” has the potential to go to an extreme which ceases to be a positive. If concern for peoples sensitivities stifles legitimate debate, or imposes on anyone’s Freedom of Expression it becomes a bad thing. No idea, individual, group, race or in fact anything, should be immune to question and criticism. This risk exists in the world of art and satire, where the purpose is often to provoke debate or outrage or to titillate and appeal to parts of the psyche that society insists we keep hidden. Interestingly, in these situations Political Correctness tends to be exercised by the conservative right. Comedy is often politically incorrect and I have no issue with this. Although I and I suspect most become uncomfortable with political incorrectness if the comment fails to be funny!

In regards to the comments made by Rupert Murdoch in regard to acts of terrorism committed by individuals who identify as being Muslim. He appears to be using the criticism of Political Correctness against anyone who disagrees with his opinion. In making a tired, outdated and easily disputable comment such as he has, he has invited a barrage of criticism, and as much as I support his right to state his opinion (and he is probably the individual with the most opportunity to do so!), I also support others right to call him an arsehole. I welcome debate regarding the inherent nature of Islam as well as any other religion, and I can certainly see the lazy logic that leads to the conclusion that all Muslims should be held responsible for the actions of Jihadists. But it takes virtually no intellectual effort to argue that holding an entire group responsible for the actions of 0.001% is not in any way fair, useful or leading to a solution. To call a religion inherently violent when 99.999% of its followers are peaceful also requires careful explanation. There are countless other arguments against Murdoch’s opinion, and the frustration of his critics as that this debate has happened, the arguments made over and over again and his position has lost every time!

In this case Political Correctness is actually upholding the values that modern society has been moving towards for a very long time. Values that promote harmony, peace and equality. Political Correctness is opposing discrimination and arguing logic and reason. When the term Political Correctness is leveled as a criticism, it is usually someone saying “I have a right to spout some bigoted, poorly thought out, incendiary opinion and I will use this term to criticise any disagreement and avoid detailing my reasoning”.

Politics and society

Ask yourself these questions when reading anything in the media (that includes the internet, Facebook, Twitter etc).

Leave a comment

The internet has undoubtably revolutionised the way we receive information. Not only has it created a huge number of new sources of information but it has effectively deregulated the traditional media sources too. With so many sources of “news” competing for your attention it is inevitable that said competition will change the quality of the information we are being provided. When it comes to quality, few would argue that greater volume is better!
But realistically, what are we actually using this information for? We may use it to adjust our lifestyles, support or find new interests and hobbies and adopt new fears and prejudices. Still the most important function of news in our democracy is informing our voting choices. And the news outlets (or the people that own them), and politicians know all too well how the news can influence the way we vote! For example, the majority of working class people in the US, UK and Australia vote for right leaning parties, although it is surely in their best interests to vote for left leaning parties who support greater redistribution of wealth. Two liberal Australian governments have been voted in based on misrepresentation of information about “illegal” immigrants arriving in the country. In the UK the administration of Tony Blair won support for a war based on blatant lies published in the press regarding the government of Saddam Hussein, non existent weapons of mass destruction, and the ability to attack the UK within 45 minutes.
So with all of this information readily appearing in front of us, on TV, in the papers and on our smart phones, how do we know whether what we are reading is of use to us in our search for the truth? I thought I would have a go at creating some simple questions to ask ourselves when reading any news article but most of these questions apply to any information you receive. I’m sure we could collectively add to this list almost indefinitely, so I present this for discussion and amendment.

Does the article you are reading sound probable?
Seriously! Read it. Does it actually make sense? There have been innumerable stories in the press over the years that are simply not true, and even more don’t make much sense. Such as various stories in the British anti European Union press that EU officials want to ban bent bananas, want to change the name of Bombay Mix to Mumbai mix or that they were going to legislate on how much cleavage a barmaid could expose. More seriously, as mentioned above stories in the British press regarding the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This story continued even after the Hussein regime had been overthrown. Now to believe Iraq was the treat to the UK took a stretch of the imagination and a complete ignorance of history. But to believe an insane dictator had a huge stockpile of weapons and didn’t think to use them when a foreign army was invading his country, is plain gullibility!
The positive thing about the volume of information that is now available to us is that we can quite easily check the validity of the information we receive. A few minutes on Google will give you more information as to whether a story is real or a twisted mass of misinformation. Those few minutes may save you from looking like a fool, and actually make you look quite clever when you rebut the fool that is reciting the story without checking.

Do you have any empirical evidence of what is being reported, (does this story fit your own experience)?
Have you, personally, experienced evidence of what you are reading? Many of us are quite happy to believe what we have read even though we have no personal experience to back it up. I have read numerous stories of schools banning nativity plays at Christmas or councils refusing to fly a national flag so as not to offend immigrants. Firstly, does this sound probable? Only because we keep reading similar stories. But I have yet to find a single example of someone I know actually experiencing this phenomenon. Surely any headmaster or council would be inundated with complaints, protests and trouble if they were to propose such a policy.
Another example is the reports of Muslims who have immigrated to western countries and want to impose sharia law. I’m not saying that they don’t exist but have you ever met one? What was your reply when they told you of their desire? Does it make sense that someone would escape a country only to wish their new country to be like their old one? That’s like me moving to Australia and then wishing the weather was shittier! Unless you are regularly bumping into Muslims campaigning for sharia law in your country, then these news reports are more likely a massive exaggeration intended to stoke your fear and hatred of other cultures.

Why has the source reported this particular story to you?
In the modern age of 24hour instant news and instantaneous global communications there are huge numbers of news stories that could be reported to you each day. So why has this particular story been reported? Why is it of more importance than the other stories that could be reported to you? Right leaning media sources tend to report much more crimes committed by people with a different skin colour or culture than the masses, but rarely report crimes committed by someone from the majority. Environmentalist news sources will enthusiastically report to you stories of governments and big businesses abusing and destroying the planet, but almost never report on successful environmental progress if it was championed by the same government. This selective reporting has two purposes. Firstly it aims to influence your voting choices by only revealing information that will encourage you to vote a certain way. Secondly it appeals to your existing values and aims to maintain your patronage.

What is the agenda of this particular news source?
Rupert Murdoch, arguably the most powerful media tycoon in the world openly supports right wing parties in democratic elections, and therefore will more likely report stories true or twisted, that present a better picture of the conservative movement or demonise the opposition. In fact most media these days is partisan. Fox is blatantly right wing whereas CNN and MSN are almost as passionately left wing. So any information that is received must be considered in the context of the agenda of the reporting organisation.
But does this make the information worthless? No, is the simple answer. Firstly, just because the information is biased it doesn’t mean it’s untrue. Also, the stories reported give the reader insight into the reporting organisation and their leaders. You can quite easily establish their agenda and that of their cohorts.

Does this information help to inform your voting choices?
With regards to all of the celebrity news we receive, obviously not. It serves to distract you from the information you need to make voting choices. Other news, may seem relevant to voting but on further investigation is not. Reporting on crime takes up a huge amount of news space in the modern media and as a result many people live in fear of being a victim of crime. The truth is crime rates have been steadily dropping in most western democracies for decades. Which means that you may be tempted to vote for a party which promises to be tough on crime, when in reality it’s a non issue.
The constant media debate about immigration, when viewed with the knowledge of statistics, how much of the population is actually immigrant, where the bulk of those immigrants come from etc, is revealed to be a non, or at best minor issue. But  said media coverage did wonders to distract from the Australian Liberal Party’s questionable economic policies during the last election campaign, and is still distracting people from other, much more important issues.

So there are some questions to ask ourselves when we are scanning the news. But a no answer the any of the above doesn’t render that particular article worthless. The article is still providing you information on what a certain organization wants you to read, and therefore gives you clues as to their agenda or often gives you clues as to what they don’t want you to think about.

Please, don’t believe everything you read, question it all! Even what is written here! And especially if what you are reading happens to support your existing biases, fears and prejudices. There’s a fine line between informing and indulging yourself.