If extremists are anything to go by, moderates must be horrible

Today, we start a new, semi-regular (by which I mean entirely arbitrarily timed) piece, dissecting the derp of Australia’s finest ‘journalists’ when there’s just too much to encapsulate in a snarky headline.

Surprisingly, the subject of the inaugural Dissection post is not Andrew Bolt. As excellent as his latest example of non-partisan even-handedness is, the presence of a photo that apparently (entirely by accident, I’m sure) shows Julia Gillard throwing off a Nazi salute means there’s not much point going indepth, since it’s a great big Godwin. I will say in passing that it’s odd for someone to be making Hitler comparisons while criticising that same person for not arbitrarily locking up a demonised minority.

Which brings us to Janet Albrechtsen.

Right from the get-go, she tells us where she’s taking her rant: moderate Muslims suck just as much as the fundies. Before long, the logical gymnastics begin, describing Indonesia as the world’s most moderate Muslim nation; this distinction would invariably go to Turkey, unless of course one was attempting to dishonestly shore up a tenuous argument.

Her first example is of an American man charged with blasphemy for disrupting religious observance. The cited 5 years seems pretty harsh for something as simple as unplugging a loudspeaker. But she ‘forgets’ to mention that disrupting a religious service is a punishable offence in much of the West, including up to $10,000 fine or 2 years prison in some parts of Australia. It also seems quite likely that she’s citing 5 years as the maximum possible penalty for the charge of blasphemy, while “pulling out a cable” would be very low down the scale. But don’t let the truth get in the way, Janet!

She doesn’t.

Next, she quotes a government minister as announcing a religious sect “must be disbanded immediately”, as though this was an official government edict. Too bad, then, that this was merely a statement of his personal belief. Of course, the fact that he is a minister of the government of the “most moderate” Muslim nation in the world implies that he’s a moderate himself, right? Just like Tony “Precious Gift” Abbott was moderate by virtue of being a minister in moderate Australia’s government. Wait, no. So she’s using an example of a conservative (perhaps even extremist) member of society, but calling it ‘moderate’.

In fact, that particular bit of intellectual dishonesty seems to form a pattern. Next on the agenda is a story about hardline protesters “confronting” Christians in a field (Confronted! In a field! Stop the presses!). Wait, they’re hardline, not moderate, so why are they being talked about at all if the subject of this article is moderate Islam? Aside from deliberately prejudicial intent, obviously.

On to extremists setting fire to a Church. Hope people only remember the “set fire to a church” thing, and ignore the extremist part. Hang on, haven’t mosques and temples been set afire in moderate, predominantly Christian Australia? Does that mean Janet Albrechtsen thinks Christian moderates are just as bad?

Moving on, she addresses Indonesia’s record on freedom of the press. Not by actually looking at the capacity of the news media in Indonesia to discuss important issues openly, but by pointing to the brouhaha over the publication of Playboy, and the editor being charged with indecency. One wonders whether she couldn’t have found a better example than Playboy, but that’s beside the point. She again attributes this to “hardline Islamic groups” baying for blood. So, again, not moderates.

Leaving Indonesia, she hops a flight to New York and dives straight into the controversy regarding the “Ground Zero” mosque. She doesn’t clarify that the proposed site is actually a few blocks away from Ground Zero, further away than a strip club and off-track betting establishment (and who knows what else). In fact, she specifically – and erroneously – says “at” Ground Zero. Nor that it’s not a mosque, but a community centre – along the lines of that dirty, horrible NY institution, the 92nd Street Y – with prayer space. And a memorial for the victims of 9/11.  But, according to Janet, building a community centre anywhere within cooee of Ground Zero is just plain wrong. And, for good measure she talks about the atrocities of 9/11. In an article about moderate Islam. With no mention of the resounding condemnation of the attacks by moderate Islam. Probably an oversight.

Her last anecdote is of the Imam involved with the aforementioned community centre, speaking in an interfaith address. Except it’s an “interfaith” address, which is about as sarcastic as one can get in print (unless, obviously, you’re as skilled as I). In this ‘”interfaith” address’ he wasn’t condemnatory enough for Albrechtsen’s liking, so is obviously evil (or something). And, entirely representative of moderate Islam. Except for the part where she explicitly states that he’s obviously not a moderate.

So, to sum up: there is religious violence committed by extremists in the world’s “most moderate” Muslim nation (which isn’t the world’s most moderate Muslim nation), some Muslims want to build a community centre on the same island as a terrorist attack to in part replace facilities lost in said terrorist attack, and one guy wasn’t quite outspoken enough. Therefore,  we need to do something about these damned moderate muslims that weren’t actually discussed, or the world will come to an end.

The problem is, all of this (appalling) logic could be applied to Christianity. And countless other religions. It can be applied to atheists, and agnostics. It can be applied to scientists, doctors, teachers and truck drivers.

But it isn’t, because Janet Albrechtsen’s on her own very public crusade against Islam.

You must be logged in to post a comment.