GagWatch

Australia’s National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies (NCEIS) was set up last year, with federal government funds, to advance knowledge and understanding of Islam and to play a leadership role in public debate on contemporary Islam.

Naturally, this has led to outrage (via).

At issue is the Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature course which, according to the Australian National Imams Council, gives a negative view of women in Islam. Not content with complaining, the Imams have circulated a petition recording its “deep concern with regards to the course structure and content”, claiming it involved “repeated and unjustified attacks upon Islam”.

Another group, Muslims for Peace, has also tried to get in on the act by branding the centre as “evil” and demanding lecturer Samar Habib be dismissed and the course abolished.

University of Western Sydney executive dean of the College of Arts, Wayne McKenna said that, although the university has not received a direct complaint, it was examining the content of the course.

Just a quick post to highlight a few stories that emerged over the weekend. I don’t have anything to add, but they’re worth a read.

First up, check out Mediawatchwatch on the news Robert Forsyth, Bishop of South Sydney is getting his cassock in a twist over Corpus Christi. And in the US, Catholic bishops are relocating a seminar because the venue will also be hosting - a month and a half later - a production of The Vagina Monologues.

Then head over to Quaequam Blog! to watch James Graham (from who I stole the picture for this post) pull apart Rowan Williams’ rather silly views on religious hatred laws.

Two Australian academics have been suspended without pay after criticising a PhD thesis called Laughing At The Disabled.

Creative industries faculty senior lecturers John Hookham and Gary MacLennan criticised the thesis in a newspaper article in April.

Late Friday afternoon they were suspended, had their work emails disconnected and were barred from the university premises. Six months salary effectively amounts to a fine of $35,000 to $40,000 each.

QUT vice-chancellor Professor Peter Coaldrake, said that he was responsible for the penalty after a committee, chaired by the appropriately named Barry Nutter, unanimously upheld complaints made against the two men. The complaints had come from the author of the thesis and two other people.

Professor Coaldrake said controversial research needed to be balanced with legal obligations and ethics. “Academic freedom is a great privilege and it should not be used to denigrate or ridicule people with vastly different ideas,” he said.

In other words, academic freedom is all well and good as long as you don’t actually try to exercise it.

The two academics objected to a film part of the thesis, which put two disabled men in social situations “in which they could only appear as inept”. UQ disability expert Lisa Bridle also criticised the thesis.

I’ve mentioned the attempts by the Australian government to tighten the country’s already strict censorship laws several times over the past couple of months. So rather than rattle on further, can I instead point you in the direction of this discussion of the problems with the proposed ban from Tony Coady.

The document uses a problematic definition of terrorism and its recommendations resort to dangerously vague categories such as “tone”. Accepting its clumsy proposals would represent yet more government erosion of civil rights, and would have a serious effect on freedom of academic inquiry.

As someone who researches terrorism in his academic work and who receives Australian Research Council support on the topic, I find the proposal thoroughly disturbing.

Taken together, these make terrorists of the Jewish armed resisters to Nazi troops in the Warsaw ghetto or French resisters attacking German military facilities, and rule out as terrorist any acts committed by Russian troops in Chechnya or Serbian troops in Kosovo. It also means that the American revolution of independence consisted wholly of terrorist acts.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Last month I remarked on the way that Australia’s Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock appeared to be trying to provoke a moral panic in order to tighten up the country’s already strict censorship laws.

It looks like he got away with it.

Earlier this month, the Australian government announced plans to tighten the country’s already strict censorship rules by banning books and films deemed to “glorify terrorism.”

After state and territory attorneys-general blocked the attempt, the Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock expressed outrage at at DVD he hadn’t seen, provoking a convenient outrage in the Australian media.

And now - surprise, surprise - the Federal Government has just released (via) a discussion paper outlining another set of tough new censorship proposals, expanding the definition of material that can be banned in the country. The proposals also tighten the already stringent film and literature classifications.

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls warned that it was important that any changes “were clearly defined so as not to inadvertently catch materials that simply expressed different points of view”.

Now here’s an interesting story. At the end of last week, the Australian government was finding itself being criticised for wanting to extend the country’s already strict censorship laws and books and films deemed to “glorify terrorism”.

And then, over the weekend, stories started popping up all over the place expressing outrage that a film that purportedly “preached jihad” had been given a PG rating by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), which means that it is not recommended for viewing by persons under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians.

The various reports all quote the same person - Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock - who was quite keen on extending his powers before this furore broke. And the reports are all very similar - so similar, in fact, that I can’t help but wonder how many of these news organisations are simply parroting the same press release without bothering to do even the most basic research.

Maybe I’m being unfair, but it does strike me as odd that, while Philip Ruddock - who hasn’t seen the film - is being quoted all over the place, the opinions of OFLC Director Des Clark are being distinctly under reported. In fact, the only people who appear to have spoken to Mr Clarke are Sky News. Inconveniently for Mr Ruddock, Des Clark told Sky News he has seen the film and it contains absolutely no incitement, which would explain the rating.

This all looks very much like a moral panic in the making - and one that is very conveniently timed given that the Australian government is - yet again - seeking to tighten their already censorship rules.

The Australian government has announced (via) plans to ban books and films deemed to “glorify terrorism” - a move designed to tighten its already strict censorship rules.

The government claims that this is part of a “zero tolerance” policy towards terrorism, but critics have pointed out that the rules will also lead to the censorship of material helpful to those wishing to understand radical Islam.

At present, it is illegal to publish or disseminate materials that promote, incite or instruct people to carry out terrorist acts. The amended law will significantly extend the censorship powers of the government by banning books and films deemed to speak out in favour of terrorist violence.

Civil libertarians have already been critical of the existing laws brought in by Prime Minister John Howard’s government, allowing the forced removal of books, claiming they limit legitimate research into terrorism and its causes.

As the Australian Society of Authors put it: “We can’t refute what we can’t read”.

But the government has dismissed these concerns, saying public safety overrides the issue of free speech.

What was that quote about giving up essential liberties to gain a little temporary safety?

Australian publishers are warning (via) that the Federal Government’s about to impose an unprecedented crackdown on books, magazines and other writings. At issue is the Content Services Bill which, according to the Government, is aimed at material sent over mobile phones and other devices, to make sure children don’t have access to explicit material.

According to the publishers, however, the bill is so broadly drafted that it will it will lead to the Office of Film and Literature Classification having to check every book and magazine published.

The peak body representing mobile phone carriers is also worried that the bill could turn out to be a red tape nightmare for its members.

AdultShop.com has lodged an appeal in the Federal Court of Australia seeking judicial review of the decision by the Classification Review Board to give an X18+ classification to the explicit erotic film, Viva Erotica.

The application for judicial review follows the publication by the Review Board on 4 January 2007 of its written reasons for upholding the classification. A copy of those reasons is available at www.censorship.adultshop.com.

AdultShop has always maintained the correct classification for Viva Erotica is R18+ and is appealing the X18+ classification on the grounds that the Review Board:

* has not reflected current community standards in its classification of Viva Erotica;
and
* has wrongfully assumed the Classification Guidelines are an accurate reflection of current community standards.

In addition, AdultShop maintains the Office of Film and Literature Classification, the government agency that provides support to the Review Board, has not properly consulted the Australian community to determine whether explicit erotic films are likely to offend the average Australian adult.

According to AdultShop’s Managing Director, Malcolm Day, “the decision by the Review Board was made despite overwhelming evidence put before it that demonstrated the majority of Australian adults are not offended by films involving actual sex”.

“If successful, this appeal should have the effect of bringing classification decisions in Australia in line with Europe, the United States and New Zealand”, he concluded.

(via The Melon Farmers)