"..the violence catalysed by the cartoons did not do much for Islam's reputation as a religion of peace and tolerance."

Editorial: Faith manipulated
THE AUSTRALIAN
February 11, 2006

Middle East regimes are playing the religion card.

THE virulence of Muslim protests over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed appears to have confirmed popular perceptions of Islam and its adherents. But while it is easy to assume all Middle East Muslims are intolerant of any opinions other than their own, and as such are incapable of co-existing with the West, or embracing democracy, it is also wrong. Much of what we saw over the last week was the work of bigots and bullies using religion as a cloak for their own prejudices, and sometimes political ambitions. This is not to deny the genuine anger among many Muslims over the publication of images of the prophet, which are proscribed as an outrageously offensive act against their faith. But there was as much artifice as genuine outrage in some of the protests, especially in police states such as Iran and Syria, where mobs burned buildings with what looked like the sanction of the regime. For all the unacceptable arrogance of people who assume the right to impose their own religious views on everybody else, it is important not to demonise all of Islam on the basis of this cartoon controversy.

Certainly this is easier said than done. There is no doubting the violence catalysed by the cartoons did not do much for Islam's reputation as a religion of peace and tolerance. With their resonance of the Salman Rushdie fatwa and the vile murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh who had criticised Islam in his work, the protests against the cartoons this week were frighteningly familiar. They added to the evidence that in the Middle East, Muslims are always intolerant of any opinions other than their own, inclined to violence against those who do not share their beliefs and utterly incapable of taking a joke. Certainly the sight of Muslim mobs baying for the blood of Christians, and anybody else involved in publishing the cartoons, is discomforting. But while many Muslims are intolerant of other faiths, there is nothing in Islam that is inimical to democracy. Malaysia's Government may wield too much power over the press for Australian tastes, but it is a functioning democracy which conducts free and fair elections. And Indonesia has moved from dictatorship to democracy with remarkable speed. And it can happen in the Middle East. Bush bashers sneer at the American ideal that democracy is the best defence against terror, saying some peoples are too politically primitive to rule themselves, but the inescapable fact is that democracy is the best chance we have for peace.

Democracies rarely vote for wars against other democracies. And the idea that there are nations where ordinary people will not welcome democracy, and the rule of law that must accompany it, denies reality. Even the Iraqi people traumatised by decades of war and dictatorship have wholeheartedly embraced democracy, going to the polls in their millions, three times last year. This terrifies authoritarian regimes in the the Middle East who fear the judgment of their subjects. This is why many play the religion card, suggesting that democracy is a tool of the godless West where Islam is mocked. Islamic terrorists do the same because they know ordinary Muslims will never vote for Taliban-style rule. The state-supported uproar we have just seen, even many of the genuine protests in the West, were a strange stew of prejudice and patriotism, spiced by states who know that denying democracy is the only way they will survive. The real risk to peace emanating from the Middle East does not come from ordinary Muslims but the clerical and secular dictators who pervert religion to protect their power.









Reform race to run
COAG is off to a good start, but there is a long way to go

AFTER a long pause for breath the Prime Minister and premiers say they are back on track for the endless reform race. In recent times they have talked a great deal and done very little to push through the reforms Australia needs to keep the economy growing. But yesterday's meeting of the Council of Australian Governments agreed on the direction we need to go, if they were sketchy on how to get there. The meeting emphasised improving our health and skills, on the assumption that this is the best way of accelerating economic growth and national wellbeing. In health there is a $1 billion commitment to free up hospital beds by transferring old-age patients who will be better off in nursing homes, and to get disabled young people out of institutions designed for the elderly. There is a promise for more medical school places, although they will be full fee paying. And there is a commitment to mental health, with governments finally admitting the blindingly obvious – that the experiment of forcing the mentally ill out of institutions and expecting them to fend for themselves with inadequate support has not worked. The agreement for a national plan to be ready by June is a long overdue acknowledgement that the mentally ill have been ignored. And there was a great deal of discussion on why Australia needs a better educated workforce, although details on how to achieve it was sparse.

In areas of infrastructure reform the meeting proposed positive plans. The Productivity Commission has the rest of the year to work out ways to reform road and rail freight pricing. In an instruction that will test even the commission's celebrated economic expertise, it was told to find ways to clear town traffic jams. There is also a commitment to roll out electricity meters that charge power by the hour, so that people can reduce their consumption for peak periods. And that old perennial, a promise for a efficient national electricity market gets a mention. Business will also be pleased by promises to reduce red tape that can delay major investments.

All in all, it was a very good meeting. But not good enough. More money for health is no answer to the problem of a hospital system that needs root and branch reform. Promises that there will be more money for mental health in June, when a new plan is prepared, require watching closely to ensure they are kept at state and federal levels both. And the treatment of key education and training issues was heavy on promises of many meetings to come, but light on details of what COAG hopes to happen. While everybody went home happy, we will not know if this meeting was a success until the end of the year. If by then a funded mental health plan is in place, and the other medical proposals are up and running, it will have done well. If there are practical proposals for transport and power, health and education in place, as well as the key plans for economic efficiency, COAG will have delivered on its promise. But the race is still to be run.

Sisterhood on song
Female parliamentarians flex their new-found muscle

WHAT a difference a generation makes. Twenty years ago, women's representation in the parliament was dismal. There was not a single woman among the 127 members of the House of Representatives; in the Senate, six women held less than 10 per cent of seats. The scene in Australia's current parliament couldn't be more different: 37 female MPs now sit in the 150-member lower chamber, making up nearly a quarter of that body. And women have more than tripled their representation in the Senate to above 35 per cent, with 27 of 76 seats. Prime Minister John Howard and Health Minister Tony Abbott had a taste of what that means for governing the nation on Thursday when female senators snubbed the pair's wish to maintain the government veto over abortion drug RU486.

In a challenge to the Howard cabinet's authority over so-called women's issues, senior Liberals including ministers Amanda Vanstone and Helen Coonan joined women from the Coalition, the ALP, the Democrats and the Greens to demand that the power to approve the drug be taken away from the health minister. Only three female senators opposed the private member's bill, giving its backers a comfortable 45-28 win in a conscience vote. The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, where a close vote is expected. Liberal MP Sharman Stone, who instigated the debate with her written complaints to Mr Abbott on the issue last year, was in the Senate visitors gallery to savour the historic vote.

The heat surrounding the debate over whether the health minister or the Therapeutic Drugs Administration should have the power to assess RU486 is reminiscent of the political brawl over the 1979 Lusher motion. When MP Stephen Lusher moved a motion to restrict health rebates for abortions to those carried out to protect the life of the mother, argument turned as much on the legality and morality of abortion as to its cost. The all-male house voted down the motion by 65 votes to 47. The then-treasurer, Mr Howard, was among those casting a losing vote.