This is a critique of the report.
“The Islamophobia Report” is a collaborative effort of political advocacy and fund raising by:
Islamophobia Register Australia, Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation, Charles Sturt University, Islamic Science and Research Academy, Diversity Council Australia, University of Western Australia, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University, Public and Contextual Theology research Centre, Charles Sturt University, Just Media Advocacy.
…… https://arts-ed.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2811960/csu-islamophobia-in-australia-July-update-digital-after-launch.pdf for a copy of the report.
The only definition of Islamophobia to be found in the report is:
Islamophobia is a form of racism that includes various forms of violence, violations, discrimination and subordination that occur across multiple sites in response to the problematisation of Muslim identity (.p 39)
Subordination ! Not treating Islam as importantly as they think it should be treated is Islamophobia? No wonder Islamophobia is found everywhere, including in all of the Muslims who responded to the 2015 Uni. SA survey. (see below).
Problematisation of Muslim Identity ! Where do these identity problems arise? Each of Shia and Sunni and Ahmadis claim the others are not real Muslims.
No problems must be raised as coming from within Islamic and Muslim identity? Is it now islamophobic to speak of it?
Before hunting down and listing identified targets for future Islamic Activists
“...while media have been quick to criminalise Muslims for all manner of alleged deviance, they have been slow to notice, detect and punish anti-Muslim perpetrators. “ page 10
Such unsupported assertions simply ignore the facts. Police charges at Bendigo for anti-islam street theatre as well as more serious, tazer possession charges In Melbourne prove the point that police are on the job against anti-islamists while Hitz but tahir was not prosecuted for racist threats to kill all Jews.
As predicted, http://johnwbolton.weebly.com/blog/academic-jihad-australian-cultural-suicide pro-islam writers seek to cite the Uni-SA “islamophobia’ report but fail to mention that report widened the definition so much that they showed all muslim respondents were themselves islamophobic.
Riaz Hassan and Bill Martin, Islamophobia, Social Distance and Fear of Terrorism in Australia (Adelaide: University of South Australia, 2015).
This report has previously been critiqued by the writer for its own internal inconsistencies and its conclusions that are not supported by or are indeed opposed by its own reported data.
For some it is clear that simply opposing Islam is a bad thing.
The writers of this self fulfilling titled islamophobia report seem unable to deal with the idea that criticism of Islam and Muslims is able to be publicly countenanced in Australia.
They seek to call out:
“those people who oppose Islam for diverse reasons” (p11)
First they attack other faiths for opposing Islam, then they go on to attack those who oppose Islam for secular reasons.
They selectively refer to history, reporting that the push back of Christendom against the caliphate was bad, and islamophobic, while not mentioning the conquest of those same lands by expansionist wars of the caliphate in the first instance. It appears that to them that was a good thing.
All Australian Religious leaders that have unfavourably addressed Islam are accused of being islamophobic (ISP) .
They complain that too much attention is being paid to those who kill others in the name of Islam and not enough to those who oppose Islamisation. This is a recurring theme in their report.
They ignore anti-anti islamisation reports such as the Griffith University report on “right wing extremism”. They do not mention the Uni. SA 2015 report (above) in this context. That would spoil their assertion that no attention is being paid to ISP while Islamic Terrorism is under the spotlight.
As part of identifying the list of opponents to abject acceptance of Islam they not only list and characterise political parties but also the personal identities of those who they accuse of ISP
The Reclaim Australia movement stipulates its position as standing up to radical Islam, political correctness and the threat of home-grown terror. Included in its manifesto is: full disclosure from manufacturers to the consumer regarding halal certification, compulsory singing of the national anthem weekly in every school in Australia and revoking the citizenship of anyone who fails to uphold their pledge of allegiance, (p 18)
There is no argument presented that what Reclaim is said to pursue is bad. Apparently it is a given, the mere mention of “radical islam” being enough to make it islamophobic.
It is at this point that the report focuses on “identifying their enemies”
It could reasonably be argued that Government funding has been used to create a list of those who oppose the islamification of Australia and provides their personal names. Interesting because many of the Muslim self reporters to the register express extreme fear because they have been personally identified by their opposition.
The report it is like a manifesto for islamic activists to target opponents in Australia who are acting politically, inferring that they are dangerous, potentially violent, phobics.
All of these people rate a mention by name.
Kirralie Smith, Cory Bernardi, Pauline Hanson, George Christensen Prime Minister Abbott , Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders. Debbie Robinson, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Tommy Robinson Anders Gravers, Danny Nahlia, Blair Cottrell.
After variously referring to these people by name and without pointing to a single incident nor from where this fancy may spring the chapter concludes by warning that extremist anti-muslim violence is possible.
Continuing the theme to deny islam as a cause for anything that gets it a bad name, the assertion is made that, Lindt Café [Martins Place] was “wrongly represented as terrorism in the media” page 26
That is not what the independent coroner found, prior to this July 2017 report being released..
After denying Martin’s place had anything to do with Islamic terrorism and then reciting the facts in the Gallea anti-muslim case (and his arrest). The report astonishingly uses Gallea as reason to say:
“We can, however, conclude, while the state and the media have been quick to criminalise Muslims for all manner of alleged deviance, they have been slow to notice, detect and punish anti-Muslim perpetrators.”
How does the basis for that assertion arise after they cite an example of the exact opposite?
They next refer to a study in which 290 media reports were both favourable and perjorative to Muslims. (not stating the balance of each.. report Griffith University not available to this writer). Both Favourable and Perjorative yet they go on to label the media as islamophobic.
The media and the press are hounded apparently for reporting the incidents at all, but specially if they have dared to mention any association between islam and violence or terrorism. .p29. Police Anti- Terrorist raids are questioned as mere “government theatre.” The inference seems to be that such raids are not purposeful at all which is against their own assertion that too much is being done.
The fact that after the “Paris Attacks” 30% of media headlines identified the problem as Islamic terrorism was to them “staggering” . Calling Islamic violence what it is, has become “staggering” to the report writers.
At no point does the report identify or call any adverse comment of Muslims or Islam bona-fide. All except praise or abject acceptance comes under the heading of media Islamophobia ( ISP).
Next we are apparently supposed to be shocked that media reports about Islamic violence “spike” after an Islamic violence attack. The Rhodes Scholars are at not at work here. Except perhaps for hiding the “spike” reality in their media releases and interviews.
The “spike” of complaints to the Islamophobia register reached an all time high of just 7 one day after the Martins Place Islamic Terrorist Murders. It dropped to 3 the next day and a to one a day later.
This was, and is, the highest and most severe backlash against muslims ever recorded in the Australian Register. Australia wide. Just Seven Islamic claims of being abused the day after such a murderously public event in one of Australia’s major cities. That is as bad as Australian reaction gets, And that is according to Muslims.
The report writers claim protection from accusations of obfuscation or misrepresentation by disclaiming that:
“…the cases reported in this analysis do not represent in any statistical sense the pattern and scope of incidents across Australia,” p49.
Even so they assert the register of ISP has become a critical source to the media. This writer has not seen any media report that shows that media have done anything except read media releases.
As to “racism” and whether speaking against islam is racist, the report states that non-arabic: “Anglo-Celtic convert Muslim women had a tendency to highlight ethnic/racial similarities with their perpetrators… she explains that she, too, is an ‘Aussie’:” p53
Just which race was the perpetrator targeting? Anglo-Celtic? Or was it the overt expression of the ideology that was being criticized?
The Introduction to the report shouts that there are distinct spikes of ISP associated with terror attacks. (P4). Reading the report shows that the only spikes were Martins Place and two others: One day after the Paris attacks Four (4) ISP incidents reported and Three (3) reports one day after the May 2015 terrorist was charged with bomb making. ( P61).
Hiding the lack of enormity in these “spikes” (more like slight hiccups) was a major effort in media management.
But as readers were cautioned“…the cases reported in this analysis do not represent in any statistical sense the pattern and scope of incidents across Australia,” p49
This report of political advocacy is a collaborative effort badged under the names of Islamophobia Register Australia, Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation, Charles Sturt University, Islamic Science and Research Academy, Diversity Council Australia, University of Western Australia, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University, Public and Contextual Theology research Centre, Charles Sturt University, Just Media Advocacy.
All these people, government funded and using government funded facilities, telling us that this number of incidents means we have a problem with Muslims being criticized on our streets. This is not money well spent.
This writer questions why the register stopped being used or analysed in December 2015, a year and a half before the report, The figures on table are really unremarkable specially if the figures have gone down.
Just Seven reports in one day, dropping back to Three the next day and then back to One after the most infamous Islamic terrorist murders in Australia (Martins Place) indicates that there is no need for authorities go in to apoplexy in fear of backlash against muslims everytime a muslim activist butchers someone.
The report opens by complaining that more has been done to stop Islamic Terrorism than has been done to stop Muslims being criticized. (P7).
This may be because Australia cares more about people not being killed than not having their feelings hurt.
But perhaps it is all about funding?:
“Government funding, therefore, needs to consciously encourage the wider community to work with Muslims in community development projects” Highlighted print in the report (at page 93)
John Bolton, Independent Observer, 30th July 2017