The march of hypocrites.

the article below by guy rundle of crikey thankfully gives some relief and balance to the over-orchestrated screams of hypocrisy and cant emanating from the alleged world leaders of so-called national democracies. the carefully prepared list in the article most certainly puts paid to their masquerades of civility and openness to other thinking in their own fiefdoms whereby truth is held in very short supply. and in this view i definitely include the foul abbott government here who donned the terrorist hangman’s hood to, vainly in my opinion, declare that the actions of one person in an obviously mental health breakdown was of equal terrorist value as the french event. i would argue that the madman of martin place here in sydney was either looking at a long gaol sentence or deportation to his native iran. neither appealed to him so i maintain he wanted to go out as a terrorist hero, in his own eyes of course, so he accepted the sad situation of ‘death-by-cop.’

like events in france, in the uk, in america and elsewhere where real terrorist events have occurred their media, strongly supported by the world media, went nationally ballistic with the emphasis on nationalism. there was only one real message and that was that ‘them muslims did it.’ whilst haranguing the fundamentalist forces of islam, as if it was one collaborative entity, they lazily denied the fact that only tiny sections of islamic radicals were behind these events. perhaps, and i am being generous here, just perhaps, between 1% to 2% of the muslim faith are involved in these actions around the world. all muslims are certainly not terrorists. whatever we may think of their faith and the way they practice it i am damned sure that we can find similar examples in other faiths. yes, some muslims are hard on their women folk but is that not analogous, to a different degree however, to the catholic church being against some pious women entering the upper echelons of catholicism? feminists and human rights advocates have argued against these practices for many years.

i personally know muslims. i am invited to their functions as well as to their homes. i break bread with them albeit it being a different type of bread. they are as peaceful in their outlook to life and the ‘australian-way’ (i hate that ridiculous term used by those who want to divide rather than cohere our multicultural australia.), and are as horrified by the actions of the minuscule terrorist minority as we non-muslims are. personally i am not religious at all. i was once but the order of blind faith, an unquestioning faith, was a learning exercise that i finally could not embrace. as we are only to well aware as world citizens the world religions are most guilty of crimes of genocide to paedophilia and all in between. i want no part in the practice of religion.

returning however to the terrorist stream surely it is beyond time that we finally at least learn of the underling causes of these events by some of the different muslim sects around the world. do not bother to read any newspaper here as you will find no facts there worthy of your enquiries as they continue to push the pap of we-the-western-world-are-right-by-might whilst all peoples of other faiths and nationalities are to be treated with the utmost derision and suspicion. in essence the cry that we are somehow all ‘hebdoiste’ is echoed by the alleged acceptance that we are all capitalists slavering to be a small part of that blind selfish creed. we are not. we dance to many drums. go to your libraries, go google, read eastern scholars. edward w said being the place to start. please, widen your knowledge before you condemn so easily. in all of our lives there are always underlying causes. such terrorist actions do not exist in a political vacuum. they are brought on by world events sometimes decades old and they have significant repercussions as we continue our lives that in terns of ‘real politik’ we have no real control over. our governments do things in our name that we as private citizens personally deplore. one, in my case, is the human rights abuses, including psychological torture on a daily basis, of the criminal treatment handed out to our asylum seekers. and they are ‘ours’ as they risk their lives escaping persecution from their own countries. just sometimes, muslim countries. but in our name they are returned to horrors we will hopefully never know to those same muslim countries. excuse me, is there something that i have missed?

i give all support to the savagery of guy’s writing because it is required reading. whether you agree with him or not is really beside the point. dialectics are raised on freedom of speech, on difference to acknowledging massacres of the other terrorist kind that recieve scant attention from our media but still shamefully more, from our so-called leaders. political, religious, secular. where is the rage? where is our empathy to people of colour as in africa?
where indeed our often quoted but barely visible ‘christian values’? some too few do speak up but their voices are much diminished by the vitriol of the verbal vomit and the cowardly silence of the ‘good’ people.

if charlie hebdo was in print here as it is in france then i have no doubt that from time to time, from issue to issue, i would be raising my voice against it. readers of these posts would know, or should know, that i am for free speech. i want the david irvine’s and others of his ilk to not be stopped from entering australia. let him in! i will then protest against his thwarted and distorted view of nazi history. against his hate crimes and hate speech. let him in! i want the public opportunity of drowning his words with my own. and others of course and not just jews. jews however need to publicly show compassion not only to their own 6 million dead but the others, the 5 million that went with them. like in so many things, size just does not matter.

conversely i also call for those others on the militant left, the black left, to also be allowed entry so i may fervently support the basis of their liberationist analysis that has been their lives as black panthers or from whatever other groups. that, dear reader, is free speech. the ability to listen, learn and do with that information what you will but in a socially peaceful fashion. protest or support equals free speech!

i am, however, virulently against vilification on religious, ethnic, sexual, political or any other grounds. the plan by the foul abbott and his attorney-general, george brandis, to allow abuse, hurt, bigotry and racism to run rampant against aborigines and torres straight islanders, muslims, jews, those of the glbtiq kind, among others, in this country i saw as being very very wrong. legal powers to shut down such hate based internet sites are already far too weak and vapid to be of much real use let alone making it worse by the advertised changes to the racial discrimination act. the strengths of that must remain if not seriously strengthened even more. regardless of andrew bolt.

humour is great but when that humour, commonly called satire, is used to vilify a section of humanity then we must stand strongly against such acts. the question that must be asked, and asked often, is how in this country, or america and canada, and especially england, how can one, how does one, discriminate racially against whites? too hard a question? maybe it is but reverse the question to discrimination against people of colour, in which group i am included by social examples i will not relate here, and the answers just jump from the page and drown you in their racial vileness. that question and its alter-ego clearly show the problems raised by whites of power in attempting to analyse such racist acts. they just do not have a life history of such racist events. brandis just could not and would not see what the resistance to any change was really about. he’d never been racially vilified or abused so what was the problem in this white christian country? absolutely nothing. they cannot and will never walk in our shoes.

charlie hebdo is a satirist magazine that went out of its way to shock rather than inform. what depictions of a pope buggering a nun was supposed to enlighten one about i have no idea. satire and respect are very strange bedfellows but sometimes they can create messages of wit and joint acceptance to the innate frailties of our many varied lives but the examples are very rare. charlie, from examples i have seen, dealt more in crudity rather than a real acceptable humour.

it seemed the world embraced ‘i am charlie’ as a clarion call to the tenets of what is seen to be free speech. and of course free speech is important to us all but i do not see such situations arising from the mouths of politicians. nor the mainstream media. none to infinitesimal examples now and then. governments have always attempted to silence whistle-blowers who publicise the secrets and lies of our governments. no freedom of speech for them. included in these exposures are war crimes against nations that follow one or other of the sects of the muslim faith. underlying causes! terrorism! absolute rubbish we are told. free speech is very heavily controlled by those in positions of power and is somewhat relative to each government in their respective countries. see the list in the article below. citizen, teach thyself!

i have been asked by some with an interest of my view, and by some with more mischievous ends, am i a ‘charlie’. well, on consideration of what i see as the social values supposedly emanating from such an identification i can only answer, no, i am not a charlie. their brand of free speech is just so incompatible with mine. i am against the terrorist action that killed the people at the hebdo office. i disagree totally with that abusive action and always will.

i do not support the random killing of innocents. if there are what is, or can be seen as, legitimate targets then the killing of the innocents is not amongst them. if it is ok and acceptable by us to agree with the ‘american-led war on terror’ then common-sense also informs us that there will be a commensurate war from the other side. in war there are causalities. we are all caught up in the middle and civilian deaths are merely seen as collateral damage by both sides. this is not an even-handed war as the desired outcomes are different but similar. both are for what is seen as world supremacy. one religious, the other for resources ever diminishing. it is called globalisation. the globalisation of money and resources but not people. where they will lead us we just do not know. and, sadly, they don’t even care. in both their master plans we are seen as nothing other than social trash. expendable to their cause.

round about the same time as the bombing atrocity of the hebdo office and the killing of 14 europeans there was in a muslim country an attack against muslim pakistani school children who were targeted by extremists of the al qaeda kind. more than 150 children were shot, executed really, for having the audacity to want an education, girls included. there was some minimal reporting and coverage of this sickening terror attack but nothing to match the outpouring of faux concern for the very basis of free speech – an education. did any world leader go to pakistan to march their streets in a real indignation as to so many lost lives? young muslim lives? of course not. after charlie they all returned to their own repressive regimes to stop any outpourings or breakout of what could be seen as anything resembling free speech. certainly in france, a march of the hypocrites!

i am not a charlie. my whole moral make-up does not allow me to be so. but, like suresh jaran in the stringer article, 12/1/15, i much prefer to be identified as ‘je suis ali khan’, he being one of the children murdered by religious extremists attacking the innocents.

why to the world leaders are the lives of 14 europeans seen as being much more important by their very public involvement than that of over 150+ children wiped out by an equal insanity of terrorism? all such deaths are horrible and are, or certainly should be, far outside our understandings of our shared humanity. it is certainly outside of mine. exactly for the same moral and sane reasons that are put in the article below by suresh jaran.


ray jackson
indigenous social justice association

prix des droits de l’homme de la republique francaise 2013
(french human rights medal 2013)

1303/200 pitt street, waterloo. 2017
61 2 9318 0947
0450 651 063

we live and work on the stolen lands of the gadigal people

Rundle: ‘Hebdoiste’ world leaders laud satire but quash true dissent

<image004.gif> <image005.gif>
Crikey writer-at-large


Were you to plot a perfect satirical novel of the contemporary world, you might end it with a mass public march, led by a series of oligarchical leaders holding a banner saying “Freedom and Democracy” — at the end of which everyone who participated would be arrested because they may well be enemies of such freedom and you can’t be too careful.

We are well on the way to that. Yesterday in Paris there was a march for “free speech”, occasioned by the evisceration of a satire/outrage magazine whose repeated focus gag was piss-takes of Muhammad, and to a lesser extent of Jesus, the Pope, rabbis, etc. The march was led by, led by, a group of characters including:

  • The Prime Minister of Turkey, the country which has jailed more journalists than anyone in the world
  • The Foreign Minister of Egypt, which has Peter Greste and two other Al Jazeera staff serving 10-year prison terms on absurd charges/convictions
  • Putin’s Foreign Minister, a government whose shadowy affiliated gangs have murdered dozens of journalists in the past decade and a half
  • The Foreign Minister of Bahrain (’nuff said).
  • The Prime Minister of Poland, whose government raided the Polish Charlie Hebdo equivalent when it “embarrassed” the government
  • The Prime Minister of Ireland, where blasphemy remains an enforced criminal offence
  • A sheikh from Qatar, where people are serving 15-year terms for “blasphemous” poetry
  • Leaders of Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and the Palestinian territories, who all jailed journos
  • Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Israel Defence Force lethally targeted journos during the Gaza invasion
  • UK Prime Minister David Cameron, where Defence Advisory Notices and super-injunctions keep a host of live information from the public
  • The Saudi ambassador to France, whose country has handed out a thousand lashes to a man convicted of blasphemy
  • The Secretary-General of NATO, which deliberately bombed the Belgrade station of Yugoslav public TV during the Kosovo operation, killing 16 journalists
  • The US Attorney-General, who works for a government which has cracked down harder on whistleblowers than any other.

(this list was ably collated by Daniel Wickham)

You couldn’t make it up. It is satire, enacted and performed. It is described as a march for “unity”. But there was no “disunity” among those who believe in a pluralist society and a free press. The disunity was between a wide section of the population who believe that a pluralist society should be exactly that — with a minimum of surveillance as an essential part of real freedom — and the leaders who are leading the march today, who are enforcing total systems of surveillance, with “public safety” as their justification. Practically no one in the West believes that journalists should be jailed or killed, save for a self-selecting group of thugs who can be found both among the small jihadist networks in the West and in the groups associated with the government of Russia, Arab states we are happy to deal with, and Turkey etc. The “disunity” would be within the march on an unspoken matter: some, perhaps many, of those marching would believe that free speech, a free society and limits on surveillance have no relationship. Latching on to the obvious thing — that it’s wrong to gun down cartoonists — they would most likely have no problem with the state jailing people such as Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and the like.

So the “unity” march, and the rush of political leaders to get themselves at the head of it, is a brilliant ruse, by which the question of the state and surveillance is papered over, and the Charlie Hebdo solidarity “movement” is conscripted in the service of the state. It’s going to take a few days, maybe a few weeks, but eventually a lot of people who thought they were genuinely arguing for a free and pluralist society are going to wake up and realise how easily they have been had, and what they have been put in the service of. State power — the “Unity” march has shown how much commonality there is between ostensibly conflicted states such as the liberal West and self-described illiberal Russia

Please comment down below