Deliberative Poll or Deliberate Ploy?

There has been much positive press about the Deliberative Poll (DP) held in Canberra over this past weekend. I attended most of the events (including all four plenary sessions) as an observer, I believe it is imperative everyone be aware of the process involved in the DP because it was very carefully crafted to virtually ensure the final result as was a very clever example of how to turn around or, more especially, deliberately manipulate people’s attitudes.

As previously indicated people were selected ‘randomly’ from around Australia and, depending on the answers given, they were then offered a free weekend in Canberra. In addition to the 350 delegates (the number quoted during the DP), a further 50 Muslims were added but these were selected by the Islamic community themselves. However, it should also be noted that there were far more Muslims present at the DP than just the 50 since it was also possible to have ‘observers’ present – and this was how I managed to attend.

The delegates were split into a number of groups (about 25) and were then given an hour prior to a Plenary Session to discuss the topic for that session and to come up with a single question which their group could direct to the Panel. The four topics at the Plenary Sessions were:

1. Muslims and non-Muslims in Australia. Who are we? Where are we? How do we live now? (The Panel to discuss this consisted of 5 people: 3 Muslims, Cardinal Pell plus a sociologist from Swinburne University of Technology)
2. Islam Phobia / West Phobia (Panel of 6: 3 Muslims (including Waleed Aly), a Jewish psychologist, a senior lecturer in Politics and International Studies from Flinders University plus one person promoting a White Australia policy)
3. Drivers of the Differences – the social, political, cultural and economic (Panel of 7: 3 Muslims (including Waleed Aly’s wife), Gill Hicks who survived the London bombings despite losing both legs, the Equal Opportunities Commissioner from SA, a journalist from the Australian who is also a director of the ABC, plus Daniel Scot).

      4 Where from here? (Panel of 5: 3 Muslims, a Federal Labor MP plus an author).

The members of the Panel were each asked to give a brief, 3-minute talk explaining their position. The Panel would then respond to questions posed by the individual groups which could be addressed to the Panel as a whole or individual members on it. However, at the first Plenary session, Sheikh Omran ‘rambled on’ for well over 10 minutes, including heaping praise onto Bob Hawke for the period while he was PM, before finally being stopped by the chairman – who just happened to be Bob Hawke!

This left less time for answering the questions and the main issue then appeared to be to get all the questions asked rather than worry too much about the answers which the chairman kept exhorting to be very brief!

I took extensive notes trying to capture each question and the essence of the reply from each person. Because a lot was said, I cannot guarantee word-for-word accuracy, but I believe that my notes would be fairly accurate. I will provide some of the sorts of questions posed to the different Panels plus the answers given at the end of this report.

As a general comment, the Islamic speakers – even the guy from Hizb ut-Tahrir – were all very well spoken, very personable and witty. They kept it all very light and gave the appearance of being ‘reasonable.’ By having Daniel Scot and the guy from the White Australia movement, the organisers could claim to have included ‘extremist’ views which were anti-Islam and so, once again, present an appearance of being ‘reasonable.’ However, it is also worth noting who was not included on the various panels and perhaps the most obvious omission would be the absence of a non-Muslim from either England or France who could talk about the problems there from a first-hand perspective (both countries being the ‘canary in the coalmine’ in terms of early warnings to us here in Australia).

Despite the attempt at ‘reasonableness,’ the format itself left a lot to be desired. As mentioned, Sheikh Omran was allowed to waffle on, but Daniel Scot was cut short by the chairman (Ian Sinclair) when he was giving his opening address – he was just about to point out that the official brochure was a classic example of taqiyya, i.e. deception, with its watered-down definition of Jihad and the attempt to re-write history, when stopped by the chairman. It is perhaps worth quoting the definition of Jihad here to show the nature of how the delegates to the DP were being deceived:

Jihad: (Struggle) – Struggling to please the almighty. The greater, or internal Jihad is the struggle against the evil within one’s soul in every aspect of life. The lesser, or external, Jihad is the struggle against the evil in one’s environment in every aspect of life. This is not to be mistaken with the common misconception that this means “Holy War”. Writing the truth (jihad bil qalam) and speaking truth in front of an oppressor are also forms of Jihad.

The source for this ‘informed’ quote was wikipedia!!

There was an interesting ‘herd mentality’ in the delegates such that every Islamic panellist would have been clapped after every remark (by all the Islamic delegates plus, interestingly, many of the younger delegates), whereas the non-Islamic panellists, especially the more ‘extreme’ ones, would not be clapped. After Daniel Scot had made one remark, I deliberately clapped very loudly from the viewing gallery and that prompted more applause which helped highlight just how easily people were led!

Many of the questions were ‘bland’ and most of the responses even more so. There was little or no opportunity to re-examine the answers given. The major problem would be that many of the delegates would have had little or no knowledge of Islam prior to the weekend and so would not have been in a position to query the answers. That, coupled with taqiyya, meant that their answers were accepted as truth.

When Daniel Scot gave specific examples of problems regarding women in the Qur’an, an Islamic scholar claimed he was taking verses ‘out of context.’ When Daniel further added that there are thousands of women serving 15-20 year sentences in Pakistani jails for being raped, the same scholar claimed that Pakistan was not an Islamic country in the true sense of the word!

After Daniel’s session, one young lady came up to him almost on the point of bursting. She expressed her extreme frustration at the way anyone making critical comment within the groups had been labelled as bigots and was totally exasperated that she was unable to get any ‘real answers.’ She stated that hearing Daniel was a delight because finally someone was giving a different perspective to the politically correct nonsense they were being fed. I also heard someone as we were walking out of Parliament House after Daniel’s session talking to one of the Islamic panellists saying that there were so many bigots in his group and the level of ignorance was staggering. One can only wonder just who was displaying the ignorance!

I had the opportunity to speak to a number of people during the breaks and two conversations in particular are worth mentioning. One of the delegates seemed incredulous when I made some negative comments about Islam and she immediately responded by attacking the Bible. I responded by talking about the New Testament teaching on love but she kept coming back to the Old Testament and the violence in there. She stated that she ‘had been’ a Catholic.

I also debated some issues with an Islamic lawyer who was, to put it extremely mildly, very ‘slippery.’ He attempted to minimise every problem, claiming that the response to the Danish cartoons was only in a handful of countries and very few people were involved (likewise the response to the Pope’s comments). His line of argumentation was very similar to the JW approach – keep raising subject after subject until he finds one where you are not confident. When I mentioned taqiyya, he claimed he’d never heard the word, but when I started to explain, he again qualified my response. After pointing out that he had just told me he hadn’t heard the word, his response was that he was trying to find out my understanding – I responded by saying that was a perfect example of taqiyya! (Incidentally, he used exactly the same approach to Daniel shortly afterwards when Daniel was also speaking to him).

I did not attend the formal dinner on the Saturday evening as that was for the delegates and panellists only. However, I was told by both Daniel and another panellist that Bob Hawke’s speech was appalling. Essentially, he was lauding Islam and knocking Christianity. Daniel was so annoyed by his comments that he spoke to him one-on-one the following day. Hawke’s response was that Daniel was the only one to make such remarks, but Daniel pointed out that whereas that might have been true, there were certainly many others who shared his view!

On a positive front, many people came up to Daniel after his session (he estimated 30-40) and were keen to hear more. It also gave an opportunity for those in the Christian community to see a perfect example of how the population is being manipulated and so helps us counter that strategy.

To summarise, this was a very carefully orchestrated event which could hardly have failed to produce the ‘desired results’ that it did. Of the total number of 23 panellists, 12 were Muslim and just 2 were Christian – Archbishop Pell and Daniel Scot. The questions were bland and the responses very superficial with careful ‘chairing’ to ensure negative answers were kept to an absolute minimum, but equally given enough time to provide an appropriate ‘balance.’ Problematic issues were raised – but not really discussed. Any ‘negative’ was minimised and there was constant reference to the ‘extremely small minority’ of those who want to cause problems. Furthermore, any overseas problems should be left ‘over there’ since we Aussies are far more prepared to give people a ‘fair go’ and so can avoid such problems.

In essence, the message being promoted was that Muslims are all peace-loving, model citizens and all the problems relating to them integrating are caused by either the press (through sensationalising or focussing on negatives) or the government (incidentally, no government representative attended). It is in fact the Muslims who are the victims and who are subjected to abuse and threats every time there is a terrorist attack somewhere. When Daniel tried to bring the issue back to the Qur’an and what it teaches, he was accused quoting ‘out of context’ and the fact that he had been accused of blasphemy by refusing to convert to Islam was not a problem with Islam since Pakistan is not an Islamic nation!

All the problems, therefore, are on our part, not the Muslims’ and all we need to do is invite them round to have a barbeque and everything will be sweetness and light. In fact, one of the final questions was “I came here thinking the problems were on the part of the Muslims, whereas now I realise the problem lies with us. Please tell us what we can do.” Part of the response was that “now that you know the truth, whenever anyone says anything negative against Islam, you can tell them they are wrong.”

The jingoistic nature of the whole conference was encapsulated at the final luncheon where Bob Hawke, with arm around a Muslim, led a rendition of Waltzing Matilda. At that point, I left!

Panel 1:

1. What part of Australian Muslim’s lifestyle is cultural as opposed to religious? My notes indicate there was just 1 response from Prof Abdullah Saeed: “There are relatively few things on which Muslims agree universally (basically the 5 Pillars), but many issues in Islam relate to ‘back there’ (e.g. in Pakistan). There are thousands of things in Islam which are more cultural.
2. Why does the Islamic community appear to condone radicalism by keeping radical leaders in leadership?

Again, my notes indicate there were just 2 responses: Omran claimed the question was wrong since they do not have radical leaders in Australia. They only appear to be radical when they have views the media or government don’t like. Prof Saeed picked up this theme claiming it was difficult to know just what ‘radical’ means. Ultra conservative views are not in themselves a problem – only when they are converted into violence.

3. To what extent is the Muslim community prepared to do work to remove radical preaching?

Again, just one answer from Omran: We must be flexible and all work together. There are issues where Muslims cannot compromise, but we must all learn from each other.

Panel 2:

1. What specific changes would Muslims want to see for greater integration, including representation in Parliament?

Waleed Aly: Don’t need much to make it happen, but it can easily be stopped. All that’s needed is for Muslim communities to be given time and space. McCormack (White Australia and anti-immigration): It’s a numbers game – when they have the numbers, they’ll take over. Jamal (Muslim journalist): It’s not about having a Muslim MP – an MP can simply be a Muslim. Badar (Muslim youth advocate): Need interaction at all levels. Just have BBQs where you invite Muslims. The problem is that bombs are still falling in Iraq.

2. How can the media be made more accountable and socially responsible?

Gordon (Jewish psychologist): If you don’t like the ‘shock jocks,’ turn them off and then write in to complain. Jamal: Plenty of places to write – can call individual reporters. Personally against anti-censorship and believe the debate needs to be had. McCormack: There’s a lot of media out there and some of it is saying what you want to hear.

3. Given that terrorism is a reality, how do we overcome it?

Gordon: Listen to the statistics (cf number of bombs on planes v. deaths in bathtubs in the US). Also, get to know each other. McCormack: Capacity to get to know each other is extremely limited. To truly understand a culture is not simply having a BBQ. O’Neill (Political lecturere): Governments should take people into their confidence when introducing new terror laws and be more candid.

Panel 3:

1. How can you empower someone so that they can do something?

Hicks (London survivor): Just get everyone to do a little thing. Abdalla (Director Islamic research Unit, Griffith University): Speak from experience, and work at grass-roots levelto have most effect. Stop listening to what others are saying about others and go and talk with them. Individually, we can all do more powerful things. Matthews: (SA EO Commissioner) We all must make a difference. Scot: Be realistic! Don’t just buy one side of the coin. Learn what Islam really teaches. Ahmed (Islamic lawyer, Federal Attorney General’s Dept): Look at commonality we all share.

2. What is Islamic view of relationship between men and women?

Abdalla: Comments by certain leaders have been a problem and generated very strong response. Opposed to any comment creating division. Islam has given benefits to both men and women. Important to distinguish between ideals and practice. Islam gave women rights before anyone else, but there are some problems in the way Islam treats women and so important to think of contextualising Islamic Law in Australia. Albrechtsen (Writes for Australian and also ABC Director): In favour of equality of women and impressed by some women speaking out against recent mufti comments. Muslims must be able to talk about the issues and non-Muslims must be able to comment without being labelled Islamophobic or racist. Ahmed: Can’t answer in 3-4 minutes and depends on interpretation . Islam comes from the Qur’an and there are multiple issues of women in Islam. She believes women 100% equal to men, but like in Christianity, there are multiple views. Scot: Islam is not what the other panellists are making out. Qur’an states that women are like fields to be ploughed. Women are like a piece of property. Many claim Qur’an doesn’t mean that but if not, Allah should have said what he meant. Victorian police have been told to treat Muslim domestic violence differently to all others. Abdalla: Scot taking verses out of context. Certain verse in Qur’an have been abrogated. Major studies taking place into which verses have been and also the reason for the sequence in which verses were revealed.

Panel 4:

1. Mosques are funded from overseas, so should overseas Muslims fund youth programs here in Australia?

Doureihi (Media Rep for Hizb ut-Tahrir): We must stop looking at Muslims as foreigners and stop looking at funding them externally. The needs of youth are not specific to Muslims and affect all groups. So, the question is not how Muslims can help but how the overall problem should be dealt with holistically. Ferguson (Federal Labor MP in Western Suburbs of Sydney): Muslims tend to be concentrated in disadvantaged areas and so should be funded locally. He referred to a BBC debate where Bosnia is being financially assisted from overseas, but is now facing increasing problems with Wahhibism.

2. Some of our group have approached a number of Muslim participants and yet not one of us has been approached by a Muslim.

Carland (Aly’s wife, also lecturer at Monash): There are far fewer Muslim participants here, only 50 as opposed to 350. The Muslims are running from group to group to answer questions. I would like to think the question is not reality. Ferguson: Most Australians don’t know any Muslims. 50 Federal seats in Australia have less than 0.5% Muslims. There are two alternatives for a people who have been under attack since 9/11: withdraw or engage more.

3. Should Australia have a secular government or an Islamic one?

Doureihi: Muslims are not working to alter the political landscape of this country. We subscribe to a particular worldview but this differs from wanting to change the system. Muslims have as a pillar of their belief that they belong to a worldwide community and that involves re-establishing the Caliphate. As long as support for that is peaceful, this should not be a problem. The choice by the Federal government to not have a representative here is a problem. I came here because I though t it would be an opportunity to engage with the wider community. Can’t say the same for the government when they are introducing laws to criminalise certain Muslim beliefs. We have a right to express our view.