Here’s the general idea of my claim/anger: there exists a logic in Australian society that aims, to attribute the blame and, therefore, responsibility of any social ills to the Middle Eastern and/or Muslim population wherever and whenever possible.
It’s not that simple really. But a brief look at some of the recent news will demonstrate this point.
First, however, a little background.
Yesterday police released photos of 20 suspected Cronullas Beach rioters in the hope that they would be dobbed in due to shame or guilt or by being recognised in public. The reason police adopted this tactic is because, from an operational point of view, identifying the suspects was too difficult because they were probably from all over Sydney. It seems to have largely succeeded because about half of the suspects have been identified.
In this SMH article, we find Superintendent Mackay, the head of Strike Force Enoggera looking into the Cronulla riots, saying:
It was pleasing that detectives had received “numerous phone calls from people saying that so-and-so” after seeing the photos, but that he received “little or no information” about revenge attackers from Middle Eastern extraction seen in two grainy videos.
Carl Scully weighed in and ‘accused “Middle Eastern Australians” of harbouring “grubs” who “should be in jail.”’
What is telling is Keysar Trad’s response, suggesting that these accusations were unfair:
The community leaders don’t generally mix with the criminal element and we don’t recognise these people.
So why is it that a specific ethnic community is disparaged for not co-operating, but the broader Sydney community is not criticised for its lack of enthusiasm in giving up the culprits? Why, when chasing the Cronulla rioters is the difficulty seen as operational by police, yet when it comes to reprisal attackers, it is seen to be the fault of this community of “Middle Eastern Australians”?
Moreover, what is this community of “Middle Eastern Australians”? It’s a fucking myth, that’s what! To assume a certain coherence, singularity and unity of all Middle Eastern people in Australia is a grave mistake. The only reason this is allowed to continue is because it satisfies a sense of uncertainty and confusion about why, who and where.
But, why is it so easy to scapegoat the Middle Eastern population of Australia and treat them as a coherent whole? For an answer to this we need to look to the spectre of terrorism since 2001 and the reality of multiculturalism in Australia.
Briefly, terrorism since 2001 has developed strong associations with Islam and the Middle East. In fact, it can almost be said that the two have exclusive, if that is the way to describe it, attachment to terrorism. Thus, anything that resembles terrorism is quickly assumed to have its origins or causes in Islam or the Middle East. And the recognition of overt expressions of an Islamic or Middle Eastern identity raises the spectre of terrorism above the heads of these individuals or groups.
On a more speculative note, the lack of “integration” of Middle Eastern and/or Muslim Australians into the broader society allows them to maintain a marginalised “otherness” that makes them susceptible to being held up as scapegoats for moral panics. I use integration here in a sense that defies its actual definition. It has nothing to do with integrity and assimilation. On the contrary it has more to do with toleration and acceptance that accompanies a recognition of similarities and differences without having them seem incommensurable or in conflict.
Again a brief look at the news and current events illustrates the point more clearly.
First of all, why else would Howard feel compelled to have specifically a Muslim Community Reference Group unless he deemed it in not only their, but his own interests? Is it a sign of compassion and heart felt empathy for a marginalised group? Or is it a quest to keep friends close and enemies even closer? I would suggest that the government’s motivations contains more rationalisations from the latter than the former.
There are numerous reports of comments coming from the Department for Indigenous and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) that the Muslim community needs to lead the way to purging extremism that is linked to terrorism (for example, this). This, despite the lack of conclusive evidence that ALL religious extremism leads to terrorism. For example, Hilali himself has supposedly espoused the view that the September 11 attacks were “God’s work”. Without context of course this could simply be an acknowledgement of the role of the cosmological order in earthly events, or it could be vindication. Most right-wing press commentators have opted for the latter, despite the Sheikh’s own seeminigly over-zealous anti-terrorism policy of getting rid of all religious extremists, like those that advocate suicide bombing (see here). In any case, the outspoken Sheikh has condemned the reference group for being a government propaganda exercise and for not attacking the reality of community relations.
Further evidence of the belief in this supposed conclusive link between the Middle East, Islam and terrorism is seen in recent calls to “deradicalised” and “convert” religious extremists. Who should do this? The Imams of course! Because they are responsible for the whole community of Muslim people. Again a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes a community and its distinctive aspects. This is exemplified by Saeed Khan’s call for secular role models for Muslim youth, instead of the conservative religious leaders that the Federal government is pushing. Khan, himself a Muslim, is an example of internal incoherence within this fictional Muslim community.
In returning back to my original point I’d like to indulge in some fearless speculation.
Why Muslims? Why now?
The complex association between terrorism, the Middle East and Islam has forced a certain cultural closure around those of Middle Eastern backgrounds or those of the Muslim faith or those in both categories.
Terrorism has served as the catalyst for new rounds of fear and anxiety and moral panic. In these instances, a sense of security is achieved by purging the “otherness” of the “stranger” or at the very least relegating it to a disempowered and helpless position. Since the current circulation of terrorism incorporates the notion that it originates from the Middle East and/or Islam, there have been two tendencies at play (domestically). On the one hand, public institutions (as has been demonstrated above) tend to crystalise the boundary between “them” (Muslisms and Middle Eastern Australians) and “us” (Broader Australian society) by highlighting the supposed incommensurable and foreign dissimilarities. In the process, these closures tend to present a false sense of unity and coherence in the “other”. This sense of marginalisation and victimisation experienced by the other, further entrenches their own boundary building efforts typical of cultures (e.g. Benhabib’s double hermeneutic), thus mutually reinforcing the cultural closures being erected “externally” (to this group).
Obviously a lot more needs to be said and demonstrated about terrorism’s impact on society (e.g. moral panics, culture of fear, anxiety, etc) for this to hold. Although, for now, it seems a reasonable postulation about the relationship between the exceptional status of Middle Eastern and/or Muslim Australians in the cultural landascape of Australian society.
