|
|
|
|
| AID PLEDGES BY MUSLIM GOVERNMENTS | ||
|---|---|---|
| COUNTRY | AMOUNT($AUS) | |
|
|
Bahrain | 2.6m |
|
|
Brunei | 0m |
|
|
Iran | 0m |
|
|
Kuwait | 12.9m |
|
|
Libya | 2.6m |
|
|
Qatar | 32.2m |
|
|
Saudi Arabia | 12.9m |
|
|
Turkey | 1.6m |
|
|
UAE | 25.68m |
| TOTAL | $90.48m |
|
To make the Text Letters look LARGER
For Mozilla Firefox 2, Netscape Navigator 9, AND Internet Explorer 7: [Ctrl] + "+" (to reverse, [Ctrl] + "-") For Netscape Navigator 4.78: [Ctrl] + "]" For Internet Explorer 6: View / Text Size > Larger (OR Largest) / (Copied in 2004 from Paul O'Brien Web Design at http://pmob. co.uk/version7 /customise. php ) but updated on 02 Nov 07 |
| Published on Thursday, January 6, 2005 by New York Times |
We Are All Torturers Now |
| by Mark Danner |
|
At least since Watergate, Americans have come to take for granted a certain story line of scandal, in which revelation is followed by investigation, adjudication and expiation. Together, Congress and the courts investigate high-level wrongdoing and place it in a carefully constructed narrative, in which crimes are charted, malfeasance is explicated and punishment is apportioned as the final step in the journey back to order, justice and propriety.
When Alberto Gonzales takes his seat before the Senate Judiciary Committee today for hearings to confirm whether he will become attorney general of the United States, Americans will bid farewell to that comforting story line. The senators are likely to give full legitimacy to a path that the Bush administration set the country on more than three years ago, a path that has transformed the United States from a country that condemned torture and forbade its use to one that practices torture routinely. Through a process of redefinition largely overseen by Mr. Gonzales himself, a practice that was once a clear and abhorrent violation of the law has become in effect the law of the land.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Americans began torturing prisoners, and they have never really stopped. However much these words have about them the ring of accusation, they must by now be accepted as fact. From Red Cross reports, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's inquiry, James R. Schlesinger's Pentagon-sanctioned commission and other government and independent investigations, we have in our possession hundreds of accounts of "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment - to use a phrase of the Red Cross - "tantamount to torture." So far as we know, American intelligence officers, determined after Sept. 11 to "take the gloves off," began by torturing Qaeda prisoners. They used a number of techniques: "water-boarding," in which a prisoner is stripped, shackled and submerged in water until he begins to lose consciousness, and other forms of near suffocation; sleep and sensory deprivation; heat and light and dietary manipulation; and "stress positions." Eventually, these practices "migrated," in the words of the Schlesinger report, to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where for a time last spring the marvel of digital technology allowed Americans to see what their soldiers were doing to prisoners in their name. Though the revelations of Abu Ghraib transfixed Americans for a time, in the matter of torture not much changed. After those in Congress had offered condemnations and a few hearings distinguished by their lack of seriousness; after the administration had commenced the requisite half-dozen investigations, none of them empowered to touch those who devised the policies; and after the low-level soldiers were placed firmly on the road to punishment - after all this, the issue of torture slipped back beneath the surface. Every few weeks now, a word or two reaches us from that dark, subterranean place. Take, for example, this account, offered by an unnamed F.B.I. counterterrorism official reporting in August, more than three months after the Abu Ghraib images appeared, on what he saw during a visit to Guantánamo: "On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more...When I asked the M.P.'s what was going on, I was told that interrogators from the day prior had ordered this treatment, and the detainee was not to be moved. On another occasion...the detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night." This is a fairly mild example when judged against the accounts of the "abuses" that have entered the public record. I put quotation marks around the word "abuses" because most of these acts - as the F.B.I. agent acknowledged ("the interrogators from the day prior had ordered this treatment") - were in fact procedures, which would not have been possible without policies that had been approved by administration officials. In the next few days we are likely to hear how Mr. Gonzales recommended strongly, against the arguments of the secretary of state and military lawyers, that prisoners in Afghanistan be denied the protection of the Geneva Conventions. We are also likely to hear how, under Mr. Gonzales's urging, lawyers in the Department of Justice contrived - when confronted with the obstacle that the United States had undertaken, by treaty and statute, to make torture illegal - simply to redefine the word to mean procedures that would produce pain "of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure." www.commondreams.org/views05/0106-26.htm , p 1 of 2 |
|
By this act of verbal legerdemain, interrogation techniques like water-boarding that plainly constituted torture suddenly became something less than that.
But what we are unlikely to hear, given the balance of votes in the Senate, are many voices making the obvious argument that with this record, Mr. Gonzales is unfit to serve as attorney general. So let me make it: Mr. Gonzales is unfit because the slow river of litigation is certain to bring before the next attorney general a raft of torture cases that challenge the very policies that he personally helped devise and put into practice. He is unfit because, while the attorney general is charged with upholding the law, the documents show that as White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales, in the matter of torture, helped his client to concoct strategies to circumvent it. And he is unfit, finally, because he has rightly become the symbol of the United States' fateful departure from a body of settled international law and human rights practice for which the country claims to stand. On the other hand, perhaps it is fitting that Mr. Gonzales be confirmed. The system of torture has, after all, survived its disclosure. We have entered a new era; the traditional story line in which scandal leads to investigation and investigation leads to punishment has been supplanted by something else. Wrongdoing is still exposed; we gaze at the photographs and read the documents, and then we listen to the president's spokesman "reiterate," as he did last week, "the president's determination that the United States never engage in torture." And there the story ends. At present, our government, controlled largely by one party only intermittently harried by a timorous opposition, is unable to mete out punishment or change policy, let alone adequately investigate its own war crimes. And, as administration officials clearly expect, and senators of both parties well understand, most Americans - the Americans who will not read the reports, who will soon forget the photographs and who will be loath to dwell on a repellent subject - are generally content to take the president at his word. But reality has a way of asserting itself. In the end, as Gen. Joseph P. Hoar pointed out this week, the administration's decision on the Geneva Conventions "puts all American servicemen and women at risk that are serving in combat regions." For General Hoar - a retired commander of American forces in the Middle East and one of a dozen prominent retired generals and admirals to oppose Mr. Gonzales - torture has a way of undermining the forces using it, as it did with the French Army in Algeria. The general's concerns are understandable. The war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are ultimately political in character. Victory depends in the end not on technology or on overwhelming force but on political persuasion. By using torture, the country relinquishes the very ideological advantage - the promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights - that the president has so persistently claimed is America's most powerful weapon in defeating Islamic extremism. One does not reach democracy, or freedom, through torture. By using torture, we Americans transform ourselves into the very caricature our enemies have sought to make of us. True, that miserable man who pulled out his hair as he lay on the floor at Guantánamo may eventually tell his interrogators what he knows, or what they want to hear. But for America, torture is self-defeating; for a strong country it is in the end a strategy of weakness. After Mr. Gonzales is confirmed, the road back - to justice, order and propriety - will be very long. Torture will belong to us all. ### |
| FAIR USE NOTICE | |||
| This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. | |||
|
Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives © Copyrighted 1997-2005 www.commondreams.org |
|||
• Don't convert our children, Muslim group warns.
CathNews (from Church Resources, Australia), www.cathnews. com/news/50 1/35.php , Jan 10, 2005 ACEH PROVINCE, INDONESIA: The arrival of an Australian Catholic priest Fr Chris Riley in the tsunami-ravaged Indonesian province of Aceh has sparked a warning from a hardline Islamic group not to try to convert Muslim children. Fr Riley, who heads the Australian charity Youth Off The Streets, arrived in Aceh on Friday with plans to set up an orphanage to house some of the reported 35,000 Acehnese children whose parents are dead or missing. According to The Sun Herald, radical Islamic Defenders Front chief Hilmy Bakar Almascaty warned him to stick purely to humanitarian work in Aceh, the only Indonesian province to have fully implemented Muslim sharia law. Fr Riley responded by saying he has no interest in converting those he helps to Christianity. He said his charity was non-denominational and even had Muslims working in it. "There is no religious component to any of our programs," he said. There is extreme sensitivity in the largely Muslim region to any suggestion of a Christian organisation running an orphanage because of the fear it could convert the children. Muslim groups in Aceh plan to set up their own orphanage for 1000 children. The Indonesian Government has given the go-ahead for the orphanage, to be set up by Muhammadiyah, the country's second-largest Muslim group, on the outskirts of devastated Banda Aceh, where more than 50,000 people died on Boxing Day. Muhammadiyah's vice-chairman Din Syamsuddin, told The Sun-Herald yesterday his group estimated that 15,000 Acehnese children up to the age of 15 were orphaned in the disaster. After Father Riley spent a day on the ground in Banda Aceh, his plan to set up a tent orphanage appears to have been put on hold while needs for the region are assessed. After seeing that parts of the city were operating normally and with aid appearing to flow to children in need, his charity might look at directing its aid elsewhere. Fr Riley said the charity would put the funds where they were most needed by the victims. That might include help with orphans in more remote areas. Fr Riley arrived in Banda Aceh with state Member for Bankstown Tony Stewart. Mr Stewart phoned Father Riley in the days following the tsunami disaster asking what he was going to do to help the victims. Fr Riley said initially he felt there was nothing he could do, thinking his charity was too small. But after the phone call he turned on the television to see an interview with a doctor, who was looking after children, only to find that, after their medical needs were taken care of, they were discharged, leaving them with nowhere to go. "Homeless kids, that's my core business," Fr Riley said. Mr Stewart was then able to secure a $100,000 donation from Clubs NSW, which was given to the charity last Monday. SOURCE Don't convert our children, Muslim group warns (Sun Herald 9/1/05) LINKS Youth Off The Streets Caritas Australia Asian Eathquake/Tsunami Appeal ARCHIVE Fr Chris Riley and Youth Off The Streets Youth crusader warns on child sex trafficking (CathNews 19/11/04) Fr Chris Riley's youth back on the streets (CathNews 6/2/04) Two priests now nominated for Australian of the Year (CathNews 8/1/04) There's no such thing as a bad kid (CathNews 21/2/03) Award recognises street priest's work for kids (CathNews 13/12/02) Asian Tsunami Inter-faith prayer for tsunami victims in Phuket (CathNews 7/1/05 Heart-wrenching greeting for Aussie Aid Workers (CathNews 7/1/05) Pope joins Europe's mourning for tsunami victims (CathNews 6/1/05) Stronger faith builds in the wake of disaster (CathNews 6/1/05) Hope is found in faith in Tamil Nadu tragedy (CathNews 6/1/05) For some charities, delivery is half the battle (CathNews 6/1/05) Tsunami survivors find consolation in church personnel (CathNews 5/1/05) Bishop denounces Asian adoption profiteers (CathNews 5/1/05) Pope praises human solidarity after tsunami tragedy (CathNews 4/1/05) Australian Church sends prayers and support to tsunami victims (CathNews 4/1/05) MORE STORIES Relief workers starts at the bottom (The Age 10/1/05) BoysTown offers counselling to tsunami victims (ABC News 9/1/05) Post-tsunami support for children (AsiaNews 8/1/05) Islamic groups' orphan plan raises doubts (The Age 9/1/05) Hardliners stop Aussie Aceh orphanage (The Age 8/1/05) Help orphans stay in Asia, missionary group asks (Catholic World News 7/1/05) PM defends aid package (The Age 7/1/05) Caritas Active in Tsunami-Relief Work (Zenit 7/1/05) Holy See Steps Up Aid to Tsunami Victims (Zenit 7/1/05) HAVE YOUR SAY Click here |
|
Dialogue bridges religious divide.
The West Australian, "Belief & Beyond" column, by Gavin Simpson, gavin.simpson@wanews.com.au , page "Weekend Extra" 14, Saturday, January 15, 2005 PERTH (WA) Australia: D ialogue between religious groups has always been a difficult task. It is hard enough even for Christian denominations to talk to each other and find common ground. When religious faiths based on vastly different premises and beliefs try to communicate across the divide of theology and culture, it is even harder. But in an age of terror, based on an apparently unstoppable and ever-increasing clash of competing civilisations, the need for dialogue, rather than confrontation, is urgent Seeking to meet that need, the Australian Jesuits' well-respected Social Justice Centre, Uniya, organised a series of Lenten seminars in 2003 and 2004 on the topics of Muslims and Christians -- Where Do We All Stand? and A Fair Go in an Age of Terror. Participants in the seminars included Jesuit and Muslim academics, a Buddhist monk, lawyers and high-school students. Their contributions have been collected in an illuminating new book: A Fair Go in an Age of Terror, edited by the director of Uniya, Good Samaritan sister Patty Fawkner. It is a collection of views that are both erudite and down-to-earth and well worth reading in an era of intolerance. The book also comes at an interesting time, when big swaths of the Muslim world have been hit so hard by the forces of nature and questions are being asked about the role of God in all this and what is the appropriate response. The best response is obviously to ignore whatever competing religious and cultural considerations there might be and just provide as much practical help as you can. Which is what the Western world, to its credit, has done, swiftly and generously. This is one time, one might have thought, when issues of religion would not have a role. But that has not been the case. Questions have been reasonably asked about how much the Muslim world has helped its own, particularly the rich oil states which have been less generous in their response in comparison with the Christian democracies of the West. And then there is the attitude of the Muslim fundamentalists in Indonesia who reportedly warned Australians and other Western aid workers to get out of the country as soon as they have finished helping, lest they contaminate the societies in which they are working. In such an atmosphere, initial feelings of goodwill can be poisoned by recriminations and counter-recriminations. So even on this situation, making an effort to understand the position of each side and exercising patience and tolerance is obviously important. Which gets back to the idea of discussion and dialogue and rising above prejudice and judgment. One basis of any successful dialogue is recognition of how much each side has in common, which is one of the themes of A Fair Go in an Age of Terror. With Christianity and Islam, there is a common religious heritage to start with, as Dr Abdullah Saeed, head of Arabic and Islamic studies at the Melbourne Institute of Asian languages and societies, points out in a chapter in the book on Muslim-Christian relations. Dr Saeed notes that a fair proportion of the Koran is devoted to Jesus and Mary, the only woman mentioned by name. Mary is presented as an example to humankind and the Koran recounts the Virgin birth, that Jesus was not like any other human being, that he was a "word" sent to Mary, that he was raised to heaven and that he performed many miracles. What the Koran does not accept, of course, is that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, but Muslims do regard him highly as a prophet. And that's a fair basis of commonality on which to work, while acknowledging differences which are unavoidable. After all, as Dr Saeed says, Christianity and Islam do not have to be identical for their adherents to work with each other. Dr Saeed also notes that despite the monolithic view of Islam espoused in the West, Muslims are a diverse and often divided group. They agree on a few religious tenets such as belief in one God, the role of Muhammad, life after death and daily prayers, but disagree on a host of issues such as gender roles, human rights and systems of government. And in Australia, they form only a very small part of the population 1.5 per cent - with a range of quite different ethnic and cultural groups. They do not, contrary to popular imagination, form a single community. Buddhist monk and law lecturer the Venerable Alex Bruce provides an interesting look at what lies behind the terror in a chapter on terrorism and the "clash of civilisations". He points out that meeting the terrorist threat requires looking at our Western values as well as those of the Muslim East. The threat, he says, is not similar to that which arose from the Cold War battle between communism and capitalism. That was in essence a conflict between competing forms of materialism. Here the threat arises out of a horror of a Western culture that is seen as morally bankrupt and devoid of any meaningful transcendent values. Whatever values the West is seen to have appear to be purely secular and directed towards a grim economic Darwinism where only the most economically efficient and self-interested survive. It must also be recognised, the Ven. Bruce says, that we can't get rid of terrorism just by imposing our model of secular, liberal democracy on other societies. To find out what their views are and what they want and need, dialogue is essential. A Fair Go in an Age of Terror, edited by Patty Fawkner (David Lovell Publishing , $18.95) [Picture - Iran's President Mohammad Khatami and Pope John Paul II.] [David Lovell Publishing, Melbourne 03 9879 1433, 0408 335 004; no address found - 28 Jan 05] |
Some images from Afghanistan were too distressing to show
|
Taysir Alluni has a serious heart
condition and has had surgery
|
|
MELBOURNE: Freedom of discussion is a basic freedom. The competition of ideas through discussion is the way we cooperate in the search for truth. Free discussion is a form of that spontaneous cooperation spoken of by Henry George. John Stuart Mill (1859) assumes that freedom of discussion is beyond dispute - though he had hardly written this when he found that the government was prosecuting an editor for circulating the opinion that tyrannicide was lawful. (Free speech is a bit like that.) Mill argued that "there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing . . ." He was not even persuaded that restraints were needed to protect minority-held opinions. Doubtless the Religious and Racial Toleration Act of the Victorian Government has this purpose. It forbids acts to incite "hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule" of a race or a religion. This Act was recently tested. In fact, there is some evidence that it was the Equal Opportunity Commission that, indirectly, brought on the case to test the legislation by encouraging a complaint against one of the opponents of the Act. The case received world-wide attention. It was finally settled after a long period by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The case was won by three complainants who were supported by the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) against the Catch the Fire Ministries. The judge found that the religion of Islam had been ridiculed; that this was contrary to S.8 of the Religious and Racial Tolerance Act; and that penalties would follow. The public is probably persuaded that this fringe Christian group had violently, ignorantly and recklessly slandered Islam and incited hatred against Muslims, and got what was coming to them. Others may have reasoned that, whatever the merits of the case, the result gives a highly salutary message to hotheaded extremist groups to temper their prejudices. The case is a little different to that. Surprisingly, the main speaker at the seminar was an expert on Islam at least in the sense that he had lived in a Muslim country and was very familiar with the Qur'an and the hadith. Surprisingly, too, a substantial part of what was considered to vilify Islam had been readings from the Qur'an. One complaint was that the congregation had laughed at one point when the Qur'an was being read. In one mystifying moment in the 'trial' the barrister representing the ICV directed one of the accused to cease quoting the Qur'an, since this constituted vilification. She directed him to give verse references instead! Another mystifying element in the case was that the full transcript of the seminar has the speaker more than once urging his congregation to love Muslims. For example, the submission by the Catch the Fire Ministries mentions the lecturer as saying ". . . that what Muslim(s) need is love, yes, love of Christ but if we don't understand their mindset, our true intention to love them will be misunderstood". The judge refused to accept that the meeting had a religious purpose. The Act virtually gives exemption ("exception") to anything said from a pulpit. The defendants sought that exemption upon the grounds that the purpose of the seminar was to assist its congregation to proselytise among Muslims which obviously, also meant seeking their friendship. The judge rejected this. Finally, it was pointed out that, under the Act, truth is ruled out as a defence. (That is indeed strange at a time when Attorneys General are seeking to make truth the only defence in all cases of defamation!) Evidence was brought forward that a Muslim seminar in Brisbane had had some extremely caustic things to say about Christians and Christianity. Amusingly, the Catch the Fire Ministries had argued that the generally low opinion in the Qur'an and the hadith of Christians and Christianity was a breach of an old law against blasphemy and made Islam itself illegal in Australia. "Amusingly", since certainly the most ridiculed religion in Australia today is Christianity itself, especially its Roman Catholic branch. I think from this you have worked out that this was a very acrimonious case. One side complained of death threats, the other of harassment and stalking. The case had cost each side $150,000 plus. The side that prayed to Allah had won. The side that prayed to God had lost. There possibly is a religious message here. But is Australia now a more tolerant place? # END. |
|
• Bias tsunami of sharia law against majority citizens of the West.
News Weekly, www.newsweekly.com.au, Australia, OPINION "The tsunami of bias," by Babette Francis, pp 18-19, February 26, 2005 AUSTRALIA: Christopher Booker's analysis of the BBC's anti-American bias {News Weekly, January 29, 2005) highlights the unfair criticisms levelled at the US, no matter what it does. Not the least is the label "stingy" imposed by Mr Jan Egeland, United Nations under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief, because the US had initially donated "only" $15 million towards the Tsunami emergency. That amount was quickly increased to $350 million as the scope of the disaster unfolded, and it doesn't include the vast sums raised by private donors, including ordinary families who organised street "bake sales" to raise money for tsunami relief. What goes on in the mind of Mr Egeland and other UN bureaucrats who are so quick to aim their barbs at the US? Has he even noticed the US helicopters flying in and out of Aceh loaded with food and medicine for places which other planes and ships could not reach? The "stingy" United States pays 20 per cent of the entire UN budget. Out of every five dollars of Mr Egeland's salary, US taxpayers pay one. To the rescue I remember from my childhood in India that, whenever there was a flood or famine, it was USAID that came to the rescue - American planes with food, tents and medicine were quick to arrive. I suspect that the criticism of the US is part of a general attitude by Utopians who unconsciously hold Christians - and countries with a Christian ethos - to a higher standard than is expected of non-Christians. This attitude was very evident in the finding by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that two Christian pastors were guilty of religious vilification in a case brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria. The finding is particularly unfortunate because a public examination of Muslim sharia law is essential in the context of our own legal systems, and the VCAT decision is likely to dampen, if not freeze, debate.
While I respect the prayer life of Muslims and their opposition (in general) to abortion, I do not admire sharia law which can be brutal and inconsistent with fundamental principles of human rights. What is not generally realised is that Islamic sharia is not substantially different from the Mosaic criminal code in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Both require the stoning of adulterers, blasphemers and those who lead others away from the faith, although for adultery, Hebrew law required the death of both parties, not just the woman. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are part, not only of the Jewish tradition, but also of the Old Testament in the Christian Bible. What caused the changes in Christendom was the New Testament - the teachings of Jesus. It may not be politically correct to say this, but the primary reason the law code in the Torah is no longer followed is simple: from the late 300s AD through the 1900s, Jews lived entirely [sic] under the dominion of Christian rulers who forbad the enforcement of Hebraic criminal laws. While the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 AD, therein destroying the entire Hebraic system of animal sacrifice, it was Christianity that weaned Jews away from the sharia-like aspects of the Hebraic law. From AD 391 Christian government fundamentally changed Jewish legal practices. No one talks about this, but it is the case. It is of course commonplace to point to the hundreds of Christians throughout history who have launched barbarities similar to those sanctioned by the criminal law codes of Islam, the Old Testament or the Torah. However, only the Christian faith has been powerful enough to stop those who launched such barbarities. Whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or communist-atheist, the only [sic] law that forces each human being to respect the dignity of every other is Christian law. If sharia law can still be cruel, if it has not yet been brought into conjunction with respect for human dignity, that is owing to the fact that Christianity has not influenced Islam as it did Judaism. I am not suggesting a new Christian empire - although the British empire in India did end suttee (the Hindu burning of widows on their husband's funeral pyres) and Untouchability - but a full and free discussion of religion and religious differences, including quotations from the Koran, the Torah, the Vedas and the Old and New Testaments, is important in a country such as Australia with so many immigrants from a variety of religious and cultural backgrounds. This is the very type of debate that the Victorian Government's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is stifling, and this is intolerable in a democracy. Having won their victory, the Islamic Council of Victoria - and those "enlightened" members of other denominations who supported its legal action against the Catch the Fire Ministries pastors - need to turn their attention to the issues of polygamy in Muslim countries, and the "honour" killings of female relatives. They need also to explain why, in many Islamic countries, conversion to Christianity is regarded as "apostasy", punishable by death. Treating "apostasy" from the Muslim religion and laws against "proselytising" by Christians as part of the criminal code in Islamic countries is even more stifling to free religious debate than our local Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. Many of our Muslim immigrants have fled to Australia precisely because of the injustices inherent in the application of sharia law. It is ironic that the Islamic Council of Victoria has used Victorian legislation to impose some of the same restrictions on freedom of speech on Australian Christians, and surely the Bracks Government has kicked an "own goal" in giving them the opportunity to do so. The United States has formed a core group of countries with India, Japan and Australia to co-ordinate long-term rehabilitation in the tsunami-affected areas, and it deserves to be commended for its leadership role. How different was the attitude of Iran when confronted by a devastating earthquake in Bam some years ago: Iran stated it would accept assistance from all countries, including that "Great Satan", the United States, but would not accept help from Israel. That is, it preferred to let some of its citizens die than accept humanitarian assistance from a Jewish nation. This is the kind of pathology which the Islamic Council of Victoria should be tackling rather than taking to court Christian pastors who analyse the Koran. |
• Greek Orthodox church mired in Jerusalem land row.
The Guardian (Britain), www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1442923,00.html , by Chris McGreal in Jerusalem, Tuesday, March 22, 2005. JERUSALEM, Israel / Palestine:
The Greek Orthodox church in the holy land, already mired in financial and political scandal, has been accused of secretly selling off a prime Arab area of Jerusalem's old city to Jewish settlers.
[Emphasis added.]
The properties were allegedly sold by the church's treasurer in Jerusalem, Nicholas Papadimas, before he disappeared when he was charged in Greece with stealing church funds in a separate case. But Palestinians in the Greek Orthodox hierarchy allege that the church's controversial patriarch in Jerusalem, Irineos I, is behind the secret deal with two groups of overseas Jewish investors. Irineos is already fighting for his survival as patriarch after an Israeli court ruled that he had been elected to the post with the help of a convicted drug trafficker who discredited rivals using homoerotic pictures. The Greek Orthodox Church, which has about 100,000 followers in the holy land, is the richest church in the region and the second largest landowner in Jerusalem after the Israeli state. Among its holdings is the land on which the Israeli parliament and Ariel Sharon's official residence stand. The Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, has ordered an investigation of the sale of land and buildings in Omar Ibn al-Hitab square, next to the Jaffa Gate, a sensitive area because its future is uncertain in any negotiated settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Mr Qureia said he suspected the deal was part of a broader strategy by Jewish groups to buy up property and force Arabs out, "all with the goal of making Jerusalem Jewish". "It is dangerous and a clear indication of the Israeli plan that targets the holy city," he said. The affected properties include the renowned Imperial hotel, a favourite meeting place for Palestinian politicians, and numerous shops. Mr Papadimas is alleged to have secretly sold the area some months ago and then disappeared after he was indicted over the missing funds. The Greek Orthodox leadership in Jerusalem said it had no prior knowledge of the sale, which it has declared "null and void". Any such deal would need the written approval of the patriarch, the church said in a statement. But local Arab leaders of the Greek Orthodox community, headed by Archimandrite Attalla Hanna, dismiss the denials and accuse Patriarch Irineos of being part of a conspiracy to "Judaise" the old city. "The Judaisation of the city is unacceptable and whoever concedes our rights to the city does not represent us," he said. "The individuals involved must be kicked out of the church and tried." Marwan Tobasi, head of the executive committee for the Arab Orthodox Conference, said the deal posed "a real threat to the Arab identity of Jerusalem and to the joint Christian-Muslim existence in the city". Although the identity of the new owners is not yet public, Palestinians fear they will follow an established pattern of moving Jewish residents into the area and edging Arabs out over time, as has happened in other parts of the old city and just outside its walls. The Israeli newspaper Maariv described the sale as Jews seeking to "liberate the lands of Jerusalem". The Greek foreign ministry dispatched a delegation to Jerusalem yesterday to investigate the sale in an attempt to prevent a further deterioration in relations between the church leadership and Palestinians who say it is working in league with the Israelis. In the 1990s, the church enraged Palestinians by selling land outside East Jerusalem to Jewish investors who built the settlement of Har Homar on it, and there have been several smaller deals since. The church ran into financial problems last year when an Israeli court ordered it to pay about £3.7m to a property developer over a failed hotel construction deal. It has also faced upheaval after an Israeli court ruled this month that the election of Irineos I as patriarch in 2001 was illegal. The case was brought by an Arab Israeli who alleged that the election had been fixed with the help of a convicted Greek drug trafficker, Apostolos Vavilis, with close ties to the head of the church in Athens, Archbishop Christodoulos. Mr Vavilis has since admitted that he distributed homoerotic pictures of the patriarch's main opponent to influence the election. |
