CULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

The following article was written by me under a pseudonym ('Anissa') and posted on a popular Islamic website (IslamicSydney.com) some time back. It was meant to generate discussion about Islamic cultural attitudes towards sexual assault victims, but few members were willing to put forth so much as a peep. By way of background, it is perhaps worth mentioning that I have been banned from this particular website on several occasions, if for no other reason that offering a dissenting view. It purports to be 'liberal' in nature, but any person who intends to question dogma or archaic religious prescriptions is likely to be banned.

Anyway, hope this proves to be an interesting read. Prior to having a look-see, bear in mind that 'Anissa' was little more than a pseudonym alone. I wanted to put forth the persona of an intelligent, articulate and logical woman with an Islamic background, who had long given up on her faith on account of having 'reason' alone. The backlash 'she' received provided one hell of a show.

Cultural Attitudes Towards Victims of Sexual Assault

Last night I received a phone call from a friend of mine mentioning how a young man undertaking a Masters in Psychology had recently approached her. The meeting resulted in her being presented with a lengthy questionnaire seeking to address her personal attitudes towards rape victims. The bulk of questions focussed squarely on the issue of whether the woman - in particular circumstances - may be said to shoulder some of the responsibility/blame for the act of 'sexual intercourse without consent' - ie rape.

Earlier posts of mine have shed some light on the importance that Islam places upon 'modesty'. To the chagrin of many, I have went on to say that certain 'Islamic persons' often construe a covered Muslim woman as being of higher moral fabric than one who chooses to dress in say a midriff top and a miniskirt. Although my memory fails me at this point, I may have mentioned the inherent logical flaw that such a generalisation indulges in. Namely, the old adage that 'one ought not to judge a book by its cover' is completely done away with. Actually, this may not be entirely true. Physical appearance by way of dress is a much different creature from physical appearance as resultant through biology. With respect to the former, one may argue that a grown man walking down Pitt Street sporting a leopard skin g-string may well be profiled as a 'chap of dubious moral fibre'. But then again, I tend to formulate my perceptions of others based primarily on whether or not they have the capacity and/or inclination to cause unwarranted harm to others - and not necessarily whether they engage in extramarital sex, illicit drug-taking and partying etc.

Within my personal circle I hold dear a number of professional women who - in spite of dressing professionally - wear clothing which does draw attention to their female form. In exercising regularly and taking great care of their physical selves, some of these women do in fact seek to attract attention. Having said that, one must distinguish between the attraction which is sought and that which is not. They are definitely not seeking to be raped so one cannot argue that - by dressing provocatively by Islamic standards - they were 'asking for it' once the sexual assault is occasioned. Rather, it remains a well-known fact that physical attraction is often the first point of attraction as far as relationships are concerned. Although this sounds dreadfully superficial, it is simply a reality of life which most people do not perceive as being an inherent social evil leading to breakdowns in family relationships etc. Such blatant scare mongering would do little to detract any sane person from some of the more salient issues sought to be raised in my posting.

Under existing laws rape can occur when (i) a woman refuses to consent to sexual assault outright; and (ii) the man does not 'withdraw' during the act of sexual intercourse when asked to do so by the woman. Some men - irrespective of their religious affiliation - see the latter position as somehow being incredulous. It 'blows their minds' that a criminal act can be said to occur in the mere seconds following a woman's request to 'withdraw' even where the sexual act has already commenced. It must be borne in mind that, in dealing with sexual assault, we are not dealing in so-called matters of practicality. For example, how can any man be expected to withdraw at a point when he is only moments away from orgasm ? Would that not amount to some kind of 'cruel and unusual punishment' ? (Little attempt at humour there ..)

The key issue is quite simply that of consent. If a woman chooses to walk down a dark and deserted alleyway stark naked she is not inviting rape. She has NOT consented to the act of penetration and this point should never lose its clarity when clouded by futile debates over 'wrong place, wrong time, wrong choice of clothing, along, unaccompanied by big strong male for protection etc'.

The attacker's own culpability with respect to a sexual assault matter should never be removed from the wider picture. Islam seems to place a great deal of emphasis on the modesty of a woman as a means of protecting not only herself but also men from being 'tempted'. In doing so, it falls into the trap of perhaps attributing blame - through the medium of moral culpability - to a woman who is raped in a seemingly 'blameworthy' scenario. That is, provocatively dressed, inebriated, alone in dangerous place and unaccompanied by a suitable protector etc. Such views do little to advance the cause of women's' rights and almost everything to displace 100% physical, moral and emotional culpability on the attacker.

Does anyone remember the words of Yasuo Kakuda, the chief cabinet secretary of the Japanese Parliament? Some months back he appeared to comment that women who dressed provocatively were 'really asking for it'.

"If you walk around, there are many of them. Many who have a provocative appearance. Those who have that kind of appearance are at fault. Because men are black panthers."

Worse still, he alluded to men in general as being 'black panthers' - thereby insinuating that men are somehow driven by primeval or perhaps animalistic urges, with such a state being in the natural order of things. At some stage or another we all have to take responsibility for who we are - human beings with the ability to reason and rationalise. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and it shall be a sad day when a man can somehow escape and/or reduce his culpability in a sex crime by seeking to argue the alleged shortcomings of his masculinity.

Kakuda's comments appear not to be uncommon and have been complimented by the moronic comments of other leading Japanese politicians. Japan is by nature a patriarchal society although women are gradually beginning to assert dominance in both the workplace and at home. Such anomalies appear to be 'culturally' guided and not necessarily motivated by some particular faith. With Islam, however, the situation is markedly different.

Earlier this morning I perused an Islamic website (www.jannah.org) to attempt to better understand the role of 'Hijab' in the daily life of a pious Muslim woman. The arguments propounded were nothing new and indeed appeared to constitute yet another rehash with buzzwords like 'liberation', 'purity', 'chastity', 'virtue' etc. As stated by a friend of mine, Islam appears to guard the chastity of Muslimahs with greater fervour than Israel guards its nuclear arsenal. In contrasting the so-called Islamic standard with 'Western values', the following statement was provided:

"What a contrast with Western fashions which every year concentrate quite intentionally on exposing yet another erogenous zone to the public gaze! The intention of Western dress is to reveal the figure, while the intention of Muslim dress is to conceal [and cover] it, at least in public."

Comments such as the above are precisely what serve to further alienate Muslims in western countries. In a recent cultural exhibition at Darling Harbour, I was treated to the spectacle of four Muslim women - in full Islamic garb - sporting blonde wigs and mimicking what they believed to be 'western excesses'. When exposed to such a blatant exposition of the 'us and them' mentality, it is no wonder that a great many Muslims attribute a lesser moral standard to a woman who chooses to expose her 'feminine form' through tight-fitting or revealing clothing. Indeed, some would go so far as to say that such women are 'asking for it' when they get sexually assaulted through no fault of their own. It sickens me that I even have to add the qualifier of 'through no fault of their own' as a means of further clarification. The simple phrase 'sexual assault' should imbue the reader with an understanding that consent was lacking.

In addition, the allusion to 'western fashions which every year concentrate quite intentionally on exposing yet another erogenous zone to the public gaze' is laughable. The mind boggles as to just how zones a Muslim male might label as 'erogenous' with respect to a woman's body. Research conducted by a friend of mine - concentrating on male/female sexuality and arousal - noted that certain men (especially those living in Iran, Saudi Arabia et al) would be sexually aroused by the sight of an exposed wrist. Women in those parts of the world would be advised to wear a G-Shock on either wrist to prevent the possibility of inadvertently arousing a male's sexual desires. Ohhhh .. what a ravishing wrist you have sister!!

DO not for a second believe that I have little or no grasp of some of the altruistic arguments favouring the Hijab. It is true that women living in western countries face an almost comical level of pressure to be attractive. The cover of any woman's magazine as well as its contents supports this assertion. However, the fact remains that there is no moral distinction placed between a woman who goes to great lengths to appear beautiful and one who does not. Anomalies do occur, such as one woman being preferred for a position owing to her looks alone. However, these discrepancies are not brought about through the exercise of any particular religion and/or belief system. Under Islam, a woman who chooses to cover herself is describes at great length as being chaste, virtuous, pure and pious. This 'admiration' is to the exclusion of any woman who chooses not to wear the Hijab or dress with modesty.

Believe it or not there do exist women who wish to dress provocatively as a means of exerting their sexual power. Although this may be an invitation to admire - albeit with some discretion - it does not extend into an invitation of the same nature as a coupon allowing you to partake in an RSL buffet. Is there anything wrong with a person engaging in such behaviour ? Admittedly, it's rather sad that - whilst most women will be drawn to a well-dressed, groomed and heeled gentleman - the gentleman in question may be attracted primarily to a 'nice rack' and a 'butt you can bounce quarters off'. Both forms of 'attraction' have a layer of superficiality but so what? No-one is being harmed and both persons remain well in control of the decisions they make and the conduct in which they engage - whether it is flirting or a more intimate liaison.

Speaking as an intelligent and perceptive woman, I am often aware when a man is interested in me primarily because of my appearance as distinct from my personality. This much can be gauged from either body language or by the frequency of compliments which go towards looks as distinct from character. Having noted this, it is high time that society dispensed with the view of women as being 'chicks' - small, fluffy animals which are lacking in substance and have the tendency to fall prey to stealthy 'chicken hawks'. Really, such abject generalisations not only demean us but encourage even further 'predatory behaviour' among men who assume all women to be gullible creatures easily swayed by flattery.

Earlier in this piece I stated that - when seeking to judge people - I was more concerned with their capacity and/or inclination for harm. With this in mind, I was rather taken aback when I saw the lack of sympathy my mother recently expressed upon having heard the news of a prostitute's brutal rape in the Darlinghurst area. This particular lady happens to hold some 3 separate degrees and, in gauging her reaction, I saw that a decent education is not necessarily a precursor to someone developing a more sophisticated sense of compassion and/or empathy. I reminded my mother of how brutal the act of rape can be. Some people think that simply because a woman is a prostitute, she will somehow be less emotionally and/or physically distressed following a sexual assault. Strangely enough, I cannot quite remember my mother's reply. It will suffice to say that it was something less than memorable. Little more can be expected of someone who believes that all human beings should live according to the stringent codes laid down in the Quran and Hadith. Simple minded person, simple minded response ..

As with most mammals a woman needs to be ready for the act of sex to take place. In addressing the men of this forum, imagine if you have an object measuring some 6-7 inches (average) thrust into your anus. Severe bruising and trauma would result. Sensitive blood vessels in your colon would rupture instantly. Your sphincter muscles would contract thereby eliciting even greater pain. It's not that much different for a woman either. The experience is traumatic irrespective of who you may be. The fact that a woman is perceived as being lacking in chastity, purity, religion or otherwise does not serve to dampen the emotional and physical pain she feels by any margin whatsoever.

Exclusion ... this is what religion is all about. People from groups such as 'Interfaith' never tire of arguing that the world's major religions all have a 'common thread' - tolerance, peace and submission to God, charity etc. If ever we need a shining example of a concerted effort to exercise political correctness this would be it. PeeCees at their finest.

"A young woman decides to walk home alone following a late party in Darlinghurst. She lives alone in a studio apartment a few hundred metres away from the club that she has just frequented with a number of friends. She is slightly drunk, inebriated to the point that her thoughts and physical actions appear muted. Further, she is dressed in revealing clothing - a short skirt and a midriff top which exposes her stomach and cleavage. She also has a heavy layer of make-up on plus a 'glitter balm' which lends an almost shimmering quality to her face, neck and shoulders. On the way home she is accosted by a male and brutally raped."

How many of you think that - with respect to the aforementioned scenario - the woman shoulders some of the responsibility and/or blame for what has occurred? Keep in mind that it is one thing to 'assume risk' in the context of undertaking a hazardous sporting activity (eg mountain climbing) and another to 'assume risk' in choosing to walk home alone in circumstances as the one described above. With respect to the latter case, some may argue that the woman in question was 'inviting rape' on account of having - inter alia (ie amongst other things) - dressed 'provocatively'. With respect to the former scenario you're assuming responsibility for (i) your own actions; and (ii) any contingency which may arise (eg bad weather, loose rocks, frayed rope). You do NOT assume responsibility for the actions of a 'human being' who is unable to control his/her desires to the extent that a criminal act eventuates. The same SHOULD be true for the latter although some people would beg to differ. Unlike a mountain, the said human being has the ability to decide whether or not to 'attack'. With this in mind, how can it possibly be said that the woman in the aforementioned scenario is 'also to blame' ?

She took a risk and paid the price. Without doubt that is the reply some of you shall deal my way by means of an answer. In previous discussions I have been given the analogy of someone who 'stares' at another person in public - thereby provoking a heated response. Is the situation, which I've illustrated above, any different?

Yes, it is. Even is one assumes the risk of walking down a perilous alleyway dressed in sexually alluring clothing one does not seek to 'invite rape'. The central issue is one of consent and this distinction differentiates clear-headed individuals with moralistic, dogmatic nutcases. The extent to which the latter view is commonly entertained is cause for some concern. Amongst Islamic societies, this rather ham-fisted perception of rape victims is visibly apparent. The question of what triggers such archaic attitudes is a subject of further debate still. In looking towards religions values and/or morals some understanding may be fostered.

Under certain faiths a culture may be said to arise under which a woman is seen as better dead than defiled. Although I have limited knowledge of the position under Christianity, this statement is very definitely lent support by certain Islamic and Hindu societies. In both instances fathers and brothers will pursue and kill daughters or sisters for disobeying or being forced to disobey their cultural/religious rules. In measuring a woman's worth depending on whether she is a virgin, a mother, has sex inside or outside of marriage, is called a spinster, slut or a whore, has ten children or is childless, is still evident in many ways. Indeed, women are expected, if not outright encouraged, to feel guilty, sullied, dirty and worthless when they have been raped. As stated earlier, victims are often said to be 'inviting rape' if they wear 'provocative' dress. With such views in mind it is no wonder than most Muslims feel the headscarf and/or all-encompassing burkha to be some kind of 'defence mechanism' against sexual assault.

Why should I, as a woman, drastically alter my mode of dress in order to ensure that men are at ease in not being tempted in some 'un-Islamic' manner ? Why should restrictions be placed on my conduct simply because of the weak will of another ? Most importantly of all, should I be judged as a 'bad person' simply because I choose not to dress modestly from the point of view of a Muslim ? In doing something as simple as walking through Burwood Westfield I am aware of the disapproving glances cast at the numerous young women in hipster jeans, midriff tops etc. The 'daggers from the eyes' are mostly thrown by elderly Muslim women who are doing their grocery shopping or whatever.

At what point does a woman's chose of clothing throw her into the slut, whore, skank category ? These very words exist as a means of demeaning and denigrating women owing to their conduct in everyday life. Why are there so few comparative words denigrating men in a similar fashion? On more than one occasion I have been face to face with a man whose jeans are so tight that each testicle is left precariously devoid of the other's company by a very attached zipper.

Religion is obsessed with notions of purity which, for the better part, appear to place as heavy an emphasis on 'keeping up appearances' as a person's mental character and/or spiritual development etc. If this does not trigger out and out prejudice, I do not know what does. Going back to the scenario of the Lebanese gang rapes, let it not be forgotten that one of the culprits remarked to his victim that: 'We are doing this because you're Australian'. As much as I hate to bring this up, I wonder whether similar conduct would have accrued to a Muslim woman sporting a headscarf.

Under Islamic culture, the attitude to rape and raped women appears to have been covered by one of the 'great' monotheistic, male dominated religions. In worst-case scenarios, one can easily refer to a number of 'Muslim nations' where a raped woman has been arrested and sentenced to death by stoning for adultery! - Anissa

MEMORIES OF A CHILDHOOD FRIEND

It's two in the morning and I can't sleep.

Just over 15 minutes ago, I stepped onto the back porch of my house to have a cigarette. Given my current asthmatic condition, this is without doubt the stupidest thing I could possibly have done. For the better part, I guess I just wanted an excuse to be outside, to enjoy the cold night air and perhaps spend a few minutes stargazing. In addition, my mind was besought with thoughts of someone whose memory fast escapes me.

The person I am talking about is a woman named 'Daulat'. She was one of my mother's best friends, and often used to babysit me as a child. Her background was Syrian, but it was virtually impossible to pick her ethnicity based on appearance alone. She had a fair complexion, but wasn't pale. I remember her skin as having a honeyish glow to it, and she had the most stunning eyes imaginable, like emeralds on fire. Thinking back, she is probably the only person I know whose looks matched her personality. She was angelic in almost every way, someone who would give her all for those she loved and cared for.

Daulat, being a qualified nurse, was often asked by my parents to 'scare' me with images of syringes and drips should I fail to behave. She humoured them, but always winked at me secretly to show she was merely acting in jest. On occasion, she would pick me up and hold me against her face, so close that our noses touched and it became impossible to escape those penetrating green eyes of her. She treated me as her own child, and did her best to care for me and my siblings during those periods when my parents were away on business.

Several years ago, Daulat had her marriage arranged to someone she scarcely knew. For various reasons, she kept this development hidden from my family - perhaps on account of being shamed that her will was over-written by what her family believed to be in her best interests. My mother only kept in touch with Daulat intermittently during this period. Daulat had become somewhat reclusive, and we could only speculate as to why this was the case.

Anyway, the last news I received of Daulat related to her untimely death. She had died in childbirth. My mother later told me that, soon after getting married, Daulat was informed by a treating physician that complications would arise were she to get pregnant. Her husband was informed of this but seemed to care little about his wife's health and wellbeing. He insisted on children and more or less 'raped' her in marriage. As a result, she died giving birth to his child - a stillborn.

For some reason or another, Daulat came to mind while I was on the back porch, smoking a cigarette and counting constellations. I have no idea what triggered her memory, but feel disturbed that I don't think of her as often as I should. Being an atheist, I don't believe that there is a 'life after death' - this particular facet of my atheist belief system is steadfast. On occasion, it also causes me a great deal of distress. Here's a woman who ought to be remembered, who ought never to be forgotten ... and yet very few would have even known of her existence.

I only knew Daulat in my limited capacity as a child. In so many ways, she seemed to mirror my own innocence. There was a certain naivity to her, but it could not be interpreted as a 'lack of intelligence'. Rather, Daulat seemed to see the good in people and was often willing to overlook shortcomings to bring out their best traits. She could've made such a difference in the lives of everyone around her, but her entire existence was cut short by a man who could not think past his desire to continue the 'family name'.

Several months after Daulat's death, her husband visited our family home - perhaps in an effort to bask in sympathy. My parents pretended to not know of the circumstances surrounding her death, and simply wanted him out of the house as soon as practicable. I felt differently. Upon walking into the living room, I threw a chair at his face and then stuck my heel into the nape of his neck as he hit the floor. I don't believe that my actions were pre-meditated. I cannot even remember forming thoughts at the time. Everything happened almost instinctly, without foresight. All I can remember is an indescribable feeling of hatred, so intense that it felt as if it had been distilled, purified into its most base essence. The last thing I remember of that episide is being thrown out into the backyard by my parents, and Daulat's husband gasping for breath on the floor of our living room.

Those feelings came very close to rushing back when I thought of Daulat earlier today. However, now it's more hollowness than hatred. The bitterness I feel over her death is not going to bring her back. If anything, it will simply serve to dampen my fonder memories of her existence and the imprint she left on my 'child' self. I just wish that there was some way to reconcile my atheist beliefs with my desire for her to be in some 'better place'.

MANUFACTURING DISSENT

Can the force of human spirit conquer the deprivations and violations committed against it, either individually or collectively? And what are the boundaries within which we, as members of humanity, may expect to be victorious over the cynical, oppressive forces that affect our world? They are deliberately wide and vague questions. What do you think the answers are?

A few years ago I visited a friend of mine who had only just recently purchased a modest house in Glebe. He gave me a brief tour of the premises before leading me into the living room and offering me a seat on a beanbag. One of the first things I noticed about this room, aside from its sparse furniture, was a large rectangular sheet of white cloth hanging over the fireplace. It seemed to be covering up either a large framed picture or perhaps an ornamental mirror. Upon being quizzed on its purpose my friend cast aside the sheet and turned to face me, as if scanning my face for a response. The image which presented itself was that of a soldier standing over a handcuffed man laying on his stomach. He was grinding one highly polished boot into the back of the other man’s head, pressing it deep into the dirt.

"Most people get rather disturbed by it. Still, it’s worth keeping in mind all the shit that happens. Just in case you forget.", he said.

Just what is a crime against humanity? Does it have to be inhumane to be accorded such a definition? Should we even be confusing the words humanity with humane or humanitarian? Most would frown were I to answer that question. My own personal cynicism is no surprise to anyone, least of all myself. In any event, I would like to limit the tone of my discourse by concentrating on something close to home: Asylum seekers; refugees; boat people; queue jumpers.

Several years ago, I read an exceptionally well written article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Robert Manne, Associate Professor of Politics at La Trobe University, titled "Ruddock-speak is helping many to sleep at night". The article aimed to examine why so many Australians seem to be turning a blind eye to the plight of those in detention centres. Reference wsa made to a survey conducted in Newspoll which quizzed Australians on how they felt after seeing/hearing/reading about the acts of self-mutilation and protest which routinely gripped detention centres. 70% responded by saying that they felt even less sympathetic towards asylum seekers than before.

A letter to the editor (SMH Opinion & Letters) asked how anyone could be sure that the Afghans shown browbeating themselves in a detention centre were not potention suicide bombers. After all, if they could inflict such intense pain on themselves readily surely they could take the next step. What she meant by the next step is a little vague to me? Kill themselves? Become suicide bombers? I assume she meant the latter.

Manne commented briefly upon how public consciousness can be shaped through the corruption of language. One of Orwell’s essays on the relationship between politics and language is alluded to. It is one in which Orwell expressed his conviction that political language was becoming increasingly corrupted by vagueness and abstraction, by the use of dead metaphors, prefabricated phrases, the passive rather than the active tense, the choice of Latin-based rather than Anglo-Saxon words. The corruption of language in this manner hence serves a precise political purpose – the partial concealment of one’s meaning not only from other but from oneself.

Consider the following example. Ruddock was recently asked to comment on how he could justify continued detention of the family of a traumatised six-year-old boy who no longer ate or drank or spoke. He answered: "Well, I do look at these issues in the context of humanitarian considerations and there are a broad range of issues that I have to look at, firstly in terms of whether or not we give up a refugee place that could otherwise go, in this case, to four other people, whose circumstances would, I suspect, be far more compelling."

Manne goes on to say the following:

This is not an extreme version of Ruddock-speak. For him a broken child has suffered an "adverse impact"; people who go on hunger strike or sew their lips together are involved in "inappropriate behaviours"; refugees who flee to the West in terror are "queue jumpers"; those who live without hope in forlorn refugee camps are "safe and secure"; those who are dispatched to tropical prisons financed by Australia are part of the "Pacific Solution".

So, from a microeconomic perspective how can we be "victorious over the alarming amount of community hostility towards asylum seekers?". In the past I’ve carried on endlessly about the benefits of education as a means of creating dissent. If there is one proposition which the majority of Utopian/Dystopian novels put forth it’s that knowledge equates to power. The psychology of why any one person behaves, acts or thinks in a particular way is exceedingly complex and beyond the scope of my knowledge. But, if consent can be manufactured then why not dissent. The question is, how do you turn dissent into something more meaningly, something capable of throwing aside the oppressive forces.

EROSION OF THE RULE OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

The following is an opinion piece I wrote for an online socio-political discussion group (UTS Groups) shortly after the attacks of September 11.

I would like to refer all UTS Group subscribers to a thought provoking article in today’s Good Weekend magazine – a Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) publication. The article, titled "Beyond good and evil", is penned by Richard Neville and raises a number of questions concerning the United States response to the September 11 attacks. It can be found at www.richardneville.com.au. Approximately a year back, Neville wrote a similar article arguing that "Uncle Sam" was the face of a nation hell-bent on furthering its own interests. Over the course of the past week I have reflected on a number of publications commenting on the erosion of the "rule of law" in America.

President Bush’s father commented in 1992 that: "The American way of life is not negotiable." At the time I understood his words as reflective of the manner in which corporate America views other countries. It comes as no secret that bodies such as the World Bank, the Inernational Monetary Fund (IMF) and most well-known investment banks (eg Macquarie Bank) teem with third world analysts. These highly educated individuals are rarely ever asked to comment upon difficulties faced in the third world and how best to address them. For the most past their work consists of examining development and/or infrastructure projects and investments. At the end of the day the question they have to answer is: "How can we profit from X, Y and Z?"

Neville comments that corporate America treats other countries according to their respective ratings: market, mine, sweatshop or basket case. He rightly comments that most Americans, including those employed by Uncle Sam, are obliviousness of the deeds done in their name. American citizens are not the only ones who are constantly bombarded with propaganda.

"Uncle Sam’s rapaciousness is both driven and disguised by a mix of pop culture, mass media, brand fetishism and propaganda so clever and tantalising that most of us feel the sooner we’re indoctrinated into the American dream the better. Hey, don’t stop the music."
Richard Neville (Good Weekend, SMH; 12/04/02)

The question of how America views itself begs to be answered. Perhaps it is as a White Knight – one that upholds democracy and topples tyrannies the world over. The purpose is to make the world a better place, but for whom?

The US has stopped playing by its own rules and those of international law. Neville argues that as the twin towers collapsed so did America’s sense of invincibility. Perhaps that is why the deaths in Manhattan proved more shocking that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of terror victims elsewhere in the world. Maybe so, but the outpouring of sympathy afforded to victims of the September 11 attacks has a more plausible explanation, albeit a disturbing one. The proposition that loss of innocent life ought to be mourned, irrespective of who happens to die, should be afforded due merit. Reality dictates otherwise. Few would be able to remember the last time the lit a candle, or participated in a momentary silence, for those who died and continue to die in Nicaragua, Rwanda, East Timor, Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc.

The collapse of the twin towers, and an immense ego, resulted in a mob crying out for vengeance. Neville quotes Australian expatriate Steve Dunleavy as having the following to say in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post:

"The response to this unimaginable 21st century Pearl Harbour should be as simple as it is swift – kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them to basketball courts."

Steve Dunleavy (New York Post, 12/09/2001)

Bomb who though? The Taliban, although insufferable, did not plan or execute the attacks of September 11. Yet, as Neville argues, why let the truth get the way of a sitting duck? So it came to pass. The US went ahead and bombed Afghanistan to kingdom come. The power of the world’s mightiest air force being unleashed onto the world’s poorest nations. Bombing rubble into yet more rubble. The Taliban was rightly portrayed as vile and despicable, mutilating criminals, disallowing free speech and subjugating women to a horrendous existence. If these reasons alone are justifiable for crushing a nation why are there not B52 bombers flying over Saudi Arabia as we speak? Because it is a coalition ally, that is why. Further, the Saudi Arabian royal family, that has built its vast fortune on exporting oil, needs the business.

Neville mentions that, until recently, the Taliban was seen as a commercial ally. Its officials were flown to Bush’s home state of Texas where they were made to feast on T-Bone steaks which I seriously doubt as falling within the "halal" variety. The vice president of oil giant Unocol happened to be present during these quaint get togethers. Part of the Unocol agenda was to siphon some 60 billion barrels of oil (perhaps up to 270 billion) from Turkmenistan, part of the last great resource frontier. The plan was to pump oil across Afghanistan, through Pakistan to a terminal in the Arabian Sea. Until recently, these talks were seen to have collapsed in December 1998, when Unocol pulled out, citing civil unrest. However, the Bush Administration resumed talks soon after the election, believing that the Taliban could be relied upon to support the pipeline.

Interestingly enough, another party to these talks happened to now failed energy giant Enron. With the backing of the White House Enron managed to deregulate, privatise and vandalise several developing nations. Ken Law, a former Pentagon economist, was the single biggest investor in Bush’s campaign for president. In return, Law was able to appoint White House regulators, shape policies and block the regulation of offshore tax havens. Further, Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials according to web newspaper "Albion Reporter". Much of this alleged contact was in respect of the now defunct Dabhol project in India which was set-up top benefit from a hook-up with the pipeline.

Negotiations collapsed in August 2001 when the Taliban asked the US for help in respect of its failing infrastructure. The Taliban further asked for a portion of the oil to satisfy local needs. The US response was allegedly: "We will either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs". The notes of these talks are currently the subject of a lawsuit between Congress and the White House. As if this is not enough to sicken anyone consider the following. At the end of last year Bush appointed Zalma Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai as part of the special convoy to Kabul. Both men are former consultants to Unocol.

The manner in which Bush simplifies complex issues is a tribute to linguistics. Talks about launching a crusade, eliminating the "axis of evil" and depictions of Americans as "good" and their quarry as "evil" are readily digested by the masses. In effect Bush is only mirroring the mindset of his enemy. His words do not allow for blurred lines or grey hues. Anything is permitted in the "war against terrorism". According to one Sydney Morning Herald those tainted with al-Qaeda connections have been secretly sent to lands where torture is legal. The US is not stranger to terrorist acts, not because it has often been a target in the past, but because it has instigated numerous terrorist acts of it own. The US is not always on the side of angels and three examples, cited by Neville, prove apt examples:

1985, Lebanon: The CIA plants a truck bomb outside a mosque in Beirut, aiming to kill a Muslim cleric. As the faithful leave the mosque, the blast kills 80 and wounds 250, mostly women and children. (By comparison, the March attack on a Protestant church in Islamabad killed five worshippers and injured 40.) In Beirut, the targeted mullah was unhurt. None of the victims was compensated.

1989, Panama: After sustained Orwellian "hate week" campaigns against former US ally and puppet president Manuel Noriega, along the lines of those previously directed at Fidel Castro, Colonel Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, an aerial assault is launched on Panama City. The official reason is Noriega's drug trafficking, long known to Washington. Another motive is maintaining control of the Panama Canal, in the face of populist stirrings. An activist tenement barrio is bombed to rubble, a compliant government is installed. Various independent inquiries put the deaths between 3,000 and 4,000, most of the corpses still rotting in pits on US bases, off limits to investigators. American news networks did not regard the UN's overwhelming condemnation of the attack to be worth broadcasting.

1998, Sudan: The reign of Bill Clinton, the first black-schmoozing rock'n'roll pot-head President, is now derided as a time when America went soft on recalcitrant regimes (a period of "turning the other cheek", as one dipstick Sydney Morning Herald columnist put it). How soft is soft? In August 1998, Bill Clinton sent Tomahawk missiles to flatten the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, claiming it was concocting chemical weapons. Actually, this plant had bolstered pharmaceutical self-sufficiency, and produced 90 per cent of the drugs needed to treat malaria, TB and other diseases. Accusing its owner, Saleh Idris, of associating with terrorists, Washington froze his London bank account. The case was contested and the US backed down. The Sudan's death toll from this attack "continues quietly to rise", notes Chomsky, citing the "tens of thousands of people, many of them children", who have suffered or died from a range of treatable ailments. The chairman of the board of Al Shifa, Dr Idris Eltayeb, remarked that the destruction of his factory was "just as much an act of terrorism as the twin towers - the only difference is we know who did it".

Richard Neville (Good Weekend, SMH; 12/04/02)

The above examples have been "cut and pasted" directly from Neville’s article. He mentions further instances of "war crimes" committed by US troops in Afghanistan, some of which involve the gunning down of unarmed combatants in execution style massacres.

The innocent death toll in Afghanistan remains unknown. The lack of this simple statistic says much about the manner in which the 'war against terrorism’ has and is being conducted. In February the Pentagon announced plans of providing news items to foreign journalists, "possibly even false ones, to manipulate emotions. Herold, an economics professor at the University of New Hampshire, amalgamated various reports of "collateral damage" and arrived at the figure of 3700. Herold later told ABC radio that a much more realistic figure would be closer to the 5000 mark – greater than the numbers slain in the twin towers. What is most disturbing however, is the fact that his reserch only covers the period from. Since that time, Neville argues, "missiles have continued to rain upon Taliban and toddler alike."

Neville wrote to an American colleague with The Washington Post and asked him to comment on the obvious lack of publicity given to the civilian death count in Afghanistan. The answer was a cool response of: "I think you would find most people here focussed on our own thousands killed intentionally". The operative word in this sentence is "intentionally". B52s armed with massive payloads and bad intelligence will surely result in the loss of innocent life – such that a "reckless disregard for human life" is more than established. Yet, we don’t call it murder. It is merely collateral damage, hardly deemed to be worth reporting in the grander scheme of things.

The US government has stopped playing by its own rules and those of international law. It has removed the rights of foreigners suspected of terrorism to a full and fair trial. Instead, anyone that President Bush has a reason to believe is a member of Al Qaeda, or has engaged in international terrorism, or has harboured terrorists can now be tried before special military tribunals without the usual rules of evidence, without a rigorous burden and proof and without a jury. Military court materials offer the accused fewer protection than do regular trials. Trial before these special military tribunals in turn, offer far fewer protection than those afforded by court martial.

When the Russians or the Chinese try suspected Chechen or Uighur Muslims in military courts, the US State Department vehemently and rightly denounces such trials as human rights violations. When Timothy McVeigh committed his outrage, the US accorded him a full and fair trial before executing him. When Al Qaeda members bombed the World Trade Center and the United States Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, US federal court tried and convicted them. But now the job has been taken from United States courts and entrusted to what an eminent Yale law professor described as Kangaroo courts.

The US government detained thousands of people suspected of involvement in the September 11 attacks, and those considered material witnesses to it, for upwards of two months without charge and without even notifying their families that their loved ones had been detained – on the ground that if the detainee proved to be a terrorist, knowledge of their detention might assist other terrorists. Habeus corpus evolved many centuries ago to stop English Kings tossing those they did not like into dungeons and leaving them there. It requires authorities to justify detention of subjects, or release them. It is one of the most important checks on the power of potential dictators and despots.

The US government has removed the need for a warrant for a wiretap of a phone call between a suspected terrorist and his or her lawyer, on the ground that the lawyer might pass on the information to other terrorists. The title of Act that removes this critical check and balance is the aptly named "USA Patriot Act".

President Bush has further revoked the order that makes assassinations illegal, so as to allow troops to dispose of Bin Laden and other terrorists if caught. In doing so he might yet make his country party to a murder under international law. For example, Bin Laden might have surrendered but military law does not permit his execution. One would have thought that the US, of all countries, would have the most experience in respect of the down sides of assassinations as a dispute resolution technique. I can only assume the country has been receiving some revisionist lessons from the Israeli Army.

Interestingly enough President Bush did not obtain authority from the Security Council providing for the expulsion of Bin Laden and associated terrorists from Afghanistan. His own father obtained one before using force to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

Disrepect for the law has not been limited to the US government. A number of schools in the south held prayers following the September 11 attacks as a means of providing "solace to children". These actions were in direct contravention of the constitutional separation of church and state. The prohibition on school prayer can hardly be compared to a right as fundamental as habeus corpus. Nonetheless, school prayer is prohibited by a series of US Supreme Court decisions. Was the lasting effect on students the solace of prayer, or the example of their school principals knowingly, publicly and repeatedly flaunting the law of the land?

In the days following September 11 a number of newspaper columnists were fired for writing articles critical of Bush’s initial response to the attacks. A number of leading academics, including Eduard Said and Francis Boyle, were vilified and in some cases physically attacked for questioning United States foreign policy. Boyle was, for a time, banned from Internet academic discussion group because others objected to his views. SO there you go. A group of American law professors blithely ignoring the First Amendment in times of war. The wouldn’t be the only ones though.

Even commercial laws seem malleable and not mandatory. The patent for Cipro, the anti-anthrax drug, is owned by a German company known as Bayer. The US decided that the antibiotic was too expensive and threatened to break the patent and manufacture the drug itself unless Bayer dropped the price dramatically which it did. This from the very country that has used the threat of trade sanctions to require poor countries to uphold and enforce patents owned by US multinationals.

In the greatest of ironies consider the following. Since the 1998, the US Justice Department has maintained records of gun purchases in sync with the so-called Brady Law that seeks to prevent those with criminal records from purchasing firearms. The records are kept for 90 days. On 16 September 2001 the FBI sought to check the names of its detainees against those on the record to see whether any had purchase a gun in the past 90 days. It turned out that some had. The US Justice Department refused to divulge information concerning the identities of the gun purchasers to the FBI. The same department that disregarded habeus corpus and other fundamental human rights, withheld this information in order to protect the right to privacy of these gun owners. Whether the detainees had purchased a gun in the preceding 90 days was a secret, to be kept even from the FBI, so as to preserve the essential American democratic right to own a gun without others knowing of it. The power of the gun lobby at work.

AT this point I would like to leave you with a quote from Robert Jackson, ironically the Chief Prosecutor for the United States in the war crimes trials at Nuremberg after WWII. In his opening address Jackson said:

"The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating that civilisation cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being ignored, because it can not survive their being repeated. That .. great nations … stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to reason."

THE ROLE OF RELIGION AND PRAYER

Several years ago, I spent the better part of a rather uneventful Friday morning whiling away the time in a StarBucks Franchise at Westfield Parramatta. Being devoid of any worthwhile company, besides a tall black, I amused myself by thumbing through a day old copy of the Sydney Morning Herald. The remaining few moments were spent counting the scores of schoolchildren filing through a nearby McDonalds for breakfast of sub-standard pancakes. It was in observance of a rather chatty group of Year 11 & 12 schoolgirls that I happened to reflect upon a friend's comments concerning the:

• role/purpose of prayer; and
• question of why philosophers and policymakers, both theist and atheist, should have less credence leant to their views/observations than the "pearls of wisdom" sprouted by ancient scriptures.

I’ll be the very first to admit that the sight of schoolgirls in the early morning doesn't quite instil me with thoughts of religious and socio-political discourse. However, the angelic features of a select few within this blue-skirted mob made me instinctively picture them on their knees …… knelt in silent prayer. Most appeared to be from private schools within the Parramatta region which, drawing upon the simple demographics relating to private schools in the west, would presumably be of some religious denomination. With Jaci Velasquez’s * hauntingly beautiful "On My Knees" playing in my mind …. I began to contemplate the enormity of issues raised account of the question 'Why do people pray?'.

Note: Those wondering where Jaci’s single "On My Knees" can be found need only search through shelves containing "Christian Pop Music" at any Christian bookstore. The album to search for is the aptly titled "A Heavenly Place". Yeah, I completely pissed myself laughing as well ....

Religion and Prayer

As a starting point it is difficult for me to grasp the concept of prayer without reference to religion. So, it naturally follows that I shall first attempt to glean some understanding of why religion exists. Most say that it exists to satisfy the human need for spiritual fulfilment. "Spiritual fulfilment" interpreted simply, and somewhat cynically I might add, presumably equates to a need to feel comfortable with things deemed to be beyond human understanding. I hesitate to say "outside of" because I do have faith in a person’s ability to grasp difficult concepts … provided he/she did not attend a religious private school in Parramatta of course (read Christian Brothers). There are always qualifiers.

So … the need to believe in god/s arises from the inability to understand the origin and purpose of life. But a grave problem arises here. The need I speak of relates to things deemed beyond human understanding, rather than personal understanding. However, my ignorance of how a TV set works (ie inertial guidance) does not lead me to give rise to religious explanations. Thankfully, I happen to carry out my existence in a society replete with those who understand the principles behind such systems. These individuals, being possessed of highly specialised knowledge, are able to explain the relevant principles to me in simplified terms. However, if a certain friend of mine is correct and I did in fact once exist as a "Jungle Bunny" from deepest darkest Africa, these same concepts may have once engendered mystical of religious belief. These vibes for the "supernatural/paranormal" would’ve been further exemplified had I been I receipt of the Playboy channel. Indeed, certain elements within the Hefner empire often bring forth statements of "I did not know man could make such things." This is true even in Australia, where there exist a multitude of medical practitioners.

My answer for the existence of prayer is that of cause and effect. I n simplest terms, things went badly when the gods were pissed. Consequently, prayers and supplications were offered as a means of appeasement. Persons claiming to understand the gods, or who could predict happenings such as eclipses, became the priests to the gods. Human emotion can be swayed by sorrow, remorse and pleas for forgiveness. Naturally, the concept of repentance grew to be part of the rites for appeasing the gods. The control of religion in this manner is an immense source of power. Prayer can serve to be an invaluable reserve of strength when cultures clash.

My arcane analysis above leads me to exclaim "OK .. prayer helps when the faithful take up arms. What else besides?". Using reverse engineering it’s possible to examine the content of prayer and then discern why people pray. So .. what does a normal prayer comprise?

• Adoration
• Confession
• Thanksgiving
• Supplication (ie divine intervention – petition for our own needs and intercession for others)

"Dear God … You’re awesome. By the way, I had lewd thoughts about my neighbour’s wife and manipulated myself hence spilling valuable seed. I’m really sorry it happened. Ummm .. this may not be appropriate but thank you dearly for the extra sensory nerve endings in my genitalia. By the way, would there by any chance of you breaking up my neighbours’ marriage. I don’t think she’s happy with him anyway."

Whatever purpose prayer might serve, it’s obvious that it ought to be left to the individual. For example, atheists and non-Christians were rather taken aback by the flow of Christian rhetoric which bombarded TV screens following the Sept 11 attacks – everything from televised prayer vigils to Bush shouting out that God was on America’s side. This rather outlandish comment from a Christian president appalled most free-thinkers who (a) believed that the distinction between Church and State ought never to be forgotten; and (b) questioned the use of religion as a means of rallying support for some alleged greater American cause. Was Bush attempting to push prayer through as a national agenda? Or was he simply using it as one of many separate resources to console the nation?

President Bush’s proclamation of Friday, September 14 as a "National Day of Prayer and Remembrance" is indicative of the pitfalls of the "God is on our side" mentality. It may well be natural for religious/pious persons to turn to religion or prayer for solace BUT was it ever the role of the US President to urge citizens to pray, to go to church, to turn to faith, or to observe a National Day of Prayer with worship?

The American Atheists argued that just because a person does not have a particular religious disposition does not make him/her any less patriotic. Bush ought to have displayed a little more sensitivity to the cultural/religious diversity of the country he purports to lead. Additionally, consider the words of Civil War Col. Robert G. Ingersoll who said "The hands that help are better than lips that pray".

Why philosophers and policymakers, both theist an atheist, should have less credence leant to their views/observations than the "pearls of wisdom" sprouted by ancient scriptures? Persons involves in high level negotiations/decision making know for a fact that trust and confidence is primarily in the person, but the religious context may nevertheless be of importance: it is an asset known to have a strict ethical codex, provided that one is also known to follow it rigorously.

Can Burgess Carr, a well known African theologian, commented that the presence of religious personalities on the international stage is not without due emphasis. In short, they’re perceived as providing space to discuss social problems as well as giving a voice to those who have none. A religious figure is perceived as hearing persons of all social levels. He/she has credibility, the flexibility to talk to all sides. A religious figure will listen not only to leadership, but to the people.

Although true to some extent, we’re doing ourselves a massive injustice if we believe that religious leaders are infallible to the temptation to assume political power in times of social change, thereby retaining the distance that allegedly permits them to be critical of all political leaders.

Practitioners of any one particular faith are often bunched together as far as perception is concerned. A senior consultant at a friend's workplace recently exclaimed to her, in wonder, how surprised he was to hear that people from Islamic backgrounds had difference beliefs, factions, practices etc. She responded by saying "You don’t see me wearing the Hijab do you? Interesting that it took the fine people from the Discovery Channel a whole hour to tell you something you could have picked up in a single glance."

The reason why religious "pearls of wisdom" get so much attention is because they’re thought of as absolute truths. Advocates of religion/faith in its various forms often stipulate the existence of a set of shared fundamental values, inculcated various by each religion but transcending all of them, which could one day serve as a worldwide ethic for human rights. These speakers tend to emphasise the need for ecumenical dialogue, so that religious leaders can discover and fortify the common ground. Such an approach can be set to assume the existence of a universalisable core of religious beliefs, a common set of humanistic values in every faith. At this point I am reminded of a certain Simpsons episode in which Lionel Hutz contemplated life without lawyers. He visualised a meadow in which spiritual leaders from various faiths held hands in a circle and danced and swayed to 70s hippie music. The very thought made him shudder in revulsion.

I personally have doubts in adopting an ecumenical approach towards any kind of dispute resolution. The authentic core of any religion is precisely its fierce particularity. Mutual respect between religious civilisations is arguably best achieved with the acknowledgment of the irreducible and incomparable nature of religious life.

In 1995, a conference took places which was titled "The Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict". The starting point of this forum focused on the difficulties of speaking of religion as a generalised concept. Sentences beginning with the phrase "All religions …. " were vehemently challenged. Delving into particular beliefs and practices in search of "common ground" reflects a misunderstanding of religion, and is destined to produce little fruit in terms of conflict resolution. In defence of religion, it’s worth putting forth a comment by Raimo (conference participant) who pointed out that religion is the only authority that can successfully compete with the state in defining the good and in justifying the taking of a human life.

Do we really need religion to point out the bleeding obvious though? Pearls of wisdom such as "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" can be learnt through human experience alone without reference to ancient texts. However, most theists do not perceive religion and morality as being capable of mutual exclusivity. Nonetheless the complex ethical systems which exist today have been explained through evolutionary and biological models. Nietzsche described morality as the herding instinct of the individual. Evolutionary theorists view this simple yet profound comment to put forth the proposition that religion evolved for the purpose of man’s survival within a group. The best manner in which the individual may be regulated is to give him a stake in his destiny by means of morality. Religion is an effective way to do so by taking spirituality, a personal matter, and making it a public affair, where it can be regulated. The mutually exclusive nature of many religions helps make this uniformity possible.

Further, and I believe that most would agree with this, religion is severely outdated as a means for communicating morality.

The Dangers Of Integrating Religious Values Into Legislation

On numerous occasions my inbox has been deluged with emails touching upon the topic – although some would say ‘myth’ – of feminism and Islam. More recently, I received an e-mail from Kimm, commenting on the shabbiness of life, that spoke of religion’s capacity to instigate ‘ugliness’ and ‘division’. His words are not without merit. What I would like to examine, however, is some of the anomalies that arise as a result of so-called religious values being integrated in legislation.

A short awhile back, I happened to come across an old Federal Court of Australia case - Moradgholi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 13 (12 January 2000) - dealing with an appeal from a Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) decision affirming the refusal of a protection visa. The woman in question happened to be an asylum seeker from Iran. Her circumstances were both compelling and highly unusual. More specifically, she faced criminal charges in Iran for (a) adultery; (b) selling alcoholic drinks; and (c) the production and distribution of pornographic videos.

Iran in an Islamic nation in which aspects of Shari’a law and Quranic teachings are moulded into the criminal code. More often than not the winners are men. This statement, although broad, is not meant to be of the ‘blanket’ variety. The proposition holds greater weight when examined in reference to sexual assault and women’s issues.

The Federal Court accepted that the applicant’s husband had been executed following a drunken brawl with Revolutionary Guards in 1981. He was conveniently labelled a ‘counter-revolutionary’ and shot within weeks of the actual altercation. At the time of the court hearing he was survived by the protection visa applicant and her two children, both of whom were aged in their twenties and residing in Iran.

Following her husband’s execution the applicant’s life essentially took a downhill course. Having been found to hold counter-revolutionary views herself, she was barred from holding employment in either private or public office. Consequentially, she became highly dependent on charity from family and friends. In time though, she began earning an income through illegal forms of employment. Here’s a brief outline of the events that transpired in her life following the death of her husband:

• 1985 – The applicant met a man who paid some of her expenses. She went to his flat regularly. One day the Revolutionary Guards arrived and arrested them. Following an interrogation session in the presence of "Mullahs" their story of being ‘friends’ was not believed. The applicant was convicted and received 100 lashes. She was convicted and sentenced to 100 lashes. There was no evidence presented before the court hinting at any punishment being dealt to the male friend.
• 1986 – The woman began selling alcoholic drinks from her home to earn an income. Once again, she is convicted and sentenced to 100 lashes.
• 1991 – The applicant met a Christian man who induced her to perform in pornographic videos. She wished to pay him back for money he had leant her to undergo surgery to relieve stomach pains arising out of an abortion she had undergone in earlier years. She appeared in the movies twice for ten minutes each. In the movies she took off her outer clothes but kept her undergarments on and did not touch, and was not touched by, any other person. The movies were used as an interlude between other X-rated movies.

Both the RRT and the Federal Court found that that there was a real chance of the applicant facing charges of being involved in the production or distribution of obscene videos if returned to Iran. The ultimate penalty for this offence was death.

The Federal Court of Australia affirmed the decision of the RRT noting that law enforcement of a general nature cannot, without more, constitute persecution for a Refugee Convention ground. This is the case even where the said law reflects and even enforces a set of religious values. For example, consider the case of Lama v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1620 (FC). In this case the protection visa applicant had slaughtered a cow in Nepal, a criminal act which attracted a jail term of some 12 years. The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia recorded that the RRT made the following findings:

(i) The law against bovicide in Nepal is a law of general application, its terms applying equally to all persons within the country, Hindu or not, Nepalese or not.

(ii) The Nepalese law against bovicide does not demand or prescribe compliance with other Hindu beliefs or practices. It merely requires that people do not kill cows. Nepalese law permits people in the country to buy and eat imported beef.

(iii) There was no evidence of intent or motivation to harm either non-Hindus or Hindus for reasons of their religion in the letter or enforcement of the relevant Nepalese law.

(iv) Neither the Nepalese Constitution nor Nepalese laws amount to a dictate of Hindu religious values over the appellant. While the Constitution could be seen as having been built to a degree on Hindu-informed traditions respecting life and personal property, the `religious laws' were motivated by a desire to keep the peace among various religious streams in the country.

(v) The appellant killed the cow because he was hungry and wanted meat. His actions did not constitute the expression of a religious conviction nor of a desire to give effect to notions of religious freedom.

(vi) The RRT was not satisfied that the law and courts in Nepal would be remotely concerned with the appellant's beliefs or affiliations except to entertain arguments as to ignorance or other mitigating factors raised by way of defence to the purely criminal charges against him.

(vii) The appellant had not publicly advocated any change to the bovicide laws in Nepal. He would not be perceived as advocating any such charge by his acts in 1994. While there was some political controversy in Nepal about the bovicide laws in 1996, the appellant was not and would not be linked with that controversy.

The Full Court then noted that the grounds of attack to the RRT decision were as follows:

1. the RRT should have found that the reason underlying the law against bovicide in Nepal was the tenets of the Hindu religion;
2. the threat of imprisonment for violation of a law designed to protect Hindu religious values was a threat of persecution for reasons of religion; and
3. a risk of persecution pursuant to a law enacted for reasons of religion does not lose its character merely because the persecution takes place pursuant to a law of general application.

Well, that seems to make sense. The Full Court in Lama did not seem to agree though. While accepting that laws against the killing of cows were consistent with endorsing values of the Hindu faith (it later seemed to the Full Court that this ran counter to the RRT's finding on this issue) the primary judge thought that this did not mean that such laws targeted members of the society who did not adhere to that faith. His Honour described that which was governed by the law as the act of killing a cow, not the religious beliefs of the killer, and that the act was "neutral conduct in the Convention sense".

Interestingly enough, counsel for the visa applicant in the present case (ie the Iranian woman) did not suggest that there was evidence or a submission before the RRT that the anti-pornography law, while doubtless expressing Islamic values, was intended to impose the religion of Islam itself on non-Muslims. However, even if that point had been made, it would have been circumvented through the following reasoning:

"The law in question, like the anti-bovicide law in Lama, was directed against acts inconsistent with the religion of that theocratic society. It would apply indiscriminately to, for example, a Christian within the territorial boundaries of Iran, but not because that person was a Christian, and there would be no attempt to proselytise that person, whether or not he or she complied with the law."

The Full Court also refused to accept the applicant’s argument that as a woman (ie member of a particular social group) she would be more hotly pursued for her morality infringements than a man. This was in spite of ample country information highlighting gender inequality in Iran’s constitution – namely with respect to the Iranian government’s enactment of the Islamic Penal Code and enforced interpretation of the Shari’ah. The impact of these two sets of laws is that men and women are treated differently, resulting in human rights abuses that disproportionately affect women. Under the Iranian Penal Code, death by stoning is a method of punishment for adultery and other sexual offences. While men and women are subject to the same punishment, this Penal Code provision discriminates against women because in Iran women are more readily accused and convicted of adultery because of the patriarchal culture and sexist legal system. The patriarchal culture makes women more vulnerable to prosecution because women occupy fewer decision-making positions than men. Additionally, Islamic law itself makes women more likely to be convicted because evidentiary rules decline to give weight to a woman's testimony.

So, at the end of the day I guess the court decided that if everyone gets treated like shit than there is certainly no ‘discrimination’ or ‘persecution’ taking place. Well, not for a Refugee Convention reason. So, if you happen to be Iran and face criminal sanctions that would see the imposition of 100 lashes for drawing a stick woman with breasts, don’t even bother seeking asylum in Australia. The same is true if you’re a woman accused of having committed adultery. Depending on which part of Iran you’re in, the punishment dealt out can be as severe as being stoned to death.

If you happen to be an unwed woman who has been accused with adultery then, as a standard of proof, the Cadi (ie judge) can require that the woman pass an examination to find out whether she is still a virgin. If the woman is not a virgin, she is assumed to be guilty.

Does anyone remember receiving those weird brochures in Year 7 which smoke about the transition to adolescence etc? There would always be one particular section talking about how girls/women could tear their hymen through various activities, the two most notable always being horse-riding and gymnastics. I wonder whether similar literature is available in Iran or, more specifically, made available to the Cadi.

To summarise, in order to be persecuted for a Refugee Convention reason you must should that the law under which you face punishment is being applied to you in a discriminatory fashion. So, if there happens to be a law which forbids breaking wind in public, with the ultimate penalty being death, and you happen to breach it, expect no recourse from Australian courts.

THE CASE AGAINST RACIAL PROFILING

The weeks and months following September 11 have spawned a spate of articles highlighting the case both for and against racial profiling. Following September 11, there was a brief period during which it was taboo, in certain circles, to advocate racial or ethnic profiling of any kind, in any place, ever. This seeming political correctness was in direct correlation to bigots harassing and violently attacking Arab-Americans and those appearing to be of Arab descent. However, as hysteria gradually took hold, owing to the enormity of what had just happened sinking in, any such taboos were instantly displaced and racial profiling became an integral component of every domestic and international airport within the United States.

Advocates of racial profiling at airports dismiss the alleged costs to civil liberty by pointing out that the benefits to safety are not illusory. They do so not by providing factual accounts but mostly by engaging in scare mongering. Stuart Taylor Jr, a legal affairs correspondent for The Atlantic, puts forth the following 'thought example' (his words, not mine):

"Racial profiling of people boarding airliners - done politely and respectfully - may be an essential component (at least for now) of the effort to ensure that we see no more mass-murder-suicide hijackings. If you doubt this, please try a thought experiment: A few weeks hence, or a year hence, you are about to board a cross-country flight. Glancing around the departure lounge, you notice lots of white men and women; some black men and women; four young, casually dressed Latino-looking men; and three young, well-dressed Arab-looking men. Would your next thought be, "I sure do hope that the people who let me through security without patting me down didn't violate Ashcroft's policy by frisking any of those three guys"? Or more like, "I hope somebody gave those three a good frisking to make sure they didn't have box cutters"? If the former, perhaps you care less than I do about staying alive. If the latter, you favor racial profiling - at least of Arab-looking men boarding airliners."

Taylor appears to suggest that what is racial profiling to one person is basic prudence to another. However, he goes forth to qualify his comments by quickly saying that he does not condone the special scrutiny given to African-Americans and others of dark skin in other law enforcement situations. Such racial profiling is hard to distinguish from - and sometimes involves - plain old racist harassment of groups that have long experienced discrimination at every stage of the criminal justice process. Still, Taylor may be interested to note that the phrase DWB (driving while black), coined by civil rights advocates to describe racial profiling of African-Americans, has a new counterpart. Put simply, it's FWA "Flying While Arab". Since the attacks of Sept 11, hundreds of persons of Arab descent/appearance have been refused entry onto domestic/international flights on request by pilots and/or security personnel.

In a Sept 16, 2001 interview, FBI Director Robert Mueller was quoted as saying "We do not, have not, will not target people based solely on their ethnicity. Period." Advocates of racial profiling seized upon the "solely" aspect and phrased the debate as:

"The question is not whether Arab-looking people should be stopped, questioned, and searched based solely on their ethnicity. The question is whether airport security people should be allowed to consider ethnicity at all." - Stuart Taylor Jr.

Well, this sounds nice in theory but does it work in practice? Not really. Akilah Monifa, a regular contributor to AlterNet (http://www.alternet.com/) wrote a piece on a journey she made from the West Coast to the East Coast just nine days post Sept 11. She spoke of subjection to greater scrutiny simply due to her "darker hue" and of overhearing "white folks in airports talking about how they didn't look like terrorists, but "those" people did". Those words are akin to saying that face(s) of terrorism are tantamount to Muslim and Arab faces or that all folks of Italian descent are members of the Mafia. Guess we'll all just think twice about heading to Norton Street for late night gelato or grabbing a kebab in Surrey Hills after getting pissed off our faces.

What's even more interesting is that the American Constitution contains an Equal Protection Clause which calls for each citizen to be treated as an individual. However, laws cease to be commonplace in times of war. During World War II, the US placed more than 100,000 people in internment camps because of Japanese ancestry. In 1988, Congress apologized for this "fundamental injustice." The 1944 Supreme Court case approving the action, Korematsu v. United States, is deemed to be one of the most shameful in the Court's history. An article by Peter Rubin - We can enhance security and preserve rights (available www.csmonitor.com/2001/1005/p11s3-coop.html) gives a brief run down of how this Constitutional principle is loosened up in respect of airport security.

Racial profiling may well have been one of the only viable measures capable of dousing the fears of the American majority. However, it comes at a considerable cost. Once removed from the bottle the "racial profiling genie" is virtually impossible to shove back in. Hazim Bitar, of the Human Rights Institute in Alexandra, stated his thoughts as follows:

"Arab-looking men who drive vans and trucks will be profiled as well as Arabs who access the Internet from public libraries; and those who buy fertilizer at the Home Depot for their backyards. As for Arab-looking men who decide to take flying lessons, they should forget about it."

The distinction between racial profiling and abusive behaviour can get rather thin even at the best of times. One seemingly innocuous example which comes to mind occurred last Christmas when a secret service agent, of Middle Eastern descent, was barred from boarding a flight at Washington International Airport despite having all requisite papers/documentation verifying his position. An air hostess allegedly caught sight of a book he was reading - "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf - and immediately entered panic mode by alerting the pilot. Less light hearted examples include an African American woman being arrested simply on account of wearing a turban and various Pakistani businessmen being refused boarding altogether. These are examples of regulated racial profiling going awry.

Here's a disturbing scenario of racial profiling gone wrong. Approximately four years ago a pregnant black woman was detained at O'Hare airport for suspicion of carrying drugs. The woman was taken to the hospital and given a sonogram to see if she was pregnant. After the test showed she was pregnant, authorities believed she had swallowed drugs and made her take a harsh laxative. Nothing was ever found, and the woman later gave birth prematurely. The New York Customs Department, for example, has been sued thousands of times for strip-searching African-American women twice as much as white men and women.

We only need to concentrate on racial profiling in the Australian context to see its ramifications in the wider community. By this stage most have concluded that Howard's success to date has been largely attributable to his scare mongering, especially in respect refugees/asylum seekers etc. It came as no surprise to many that those aboard The Tampa were chiefly from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is, countries with predominantly Muslim populations. Warning bells started ringing everywhere. What if there were potential terrorists amongst those harbouring on the Norwegian vessel? Entirely feasible but not very likely. In touting national security as a key concern, the government immediately justified what would otherwise be perceived as a draconian, autocratic, disproportionate, inflexible and callous policy stance.

When Joe Blow from the street engages in racial profiling the results can be devastating. Joe Blow, in engaging his own racial profiling, can wreck great distress on particular members of society through either violent actions or merely an accusatory glance. Consider the most likely targets. Muslim women wearing "hijabs" or head scarves. During the Gulf Conflict I saw many such women walking with their heads down barely looking up to meet the gazes of passer-bys. It's a terrifying ordeal for anyone to be put through, to be the subject of such apprehension and often derision. To those unfamiliar with what it feels like to be subjected to such abject scrutiny the emotions are difficult to explain. Picture walking into your favourite store only to be tailed by a jittery looking sales assistant. Hmmmm .. not quite what I had in mind but close. OK maybe if this hypothetical sales assistant had the power to carry out body cavity searches we'd get close.

Additionally, just how effective is racial profiling in correctly identifying the targeted groups?? Bear in mind that, despite the 20th century's tragic attempts at refining eugenics, eyeballing races isn't exactly a science. According to the Arab American Institute, "Arabs may have white skin and blue eyes, olive or dark skin and brown eyes." Even if you focus on olive skin and dark hair, can you tell a Pashtun from a Tajik from an Uzbek from a Hindu from a Turk from a Sikh from a Sephardic Jew from a Persian from an Arab? Or, for that matter, how quickly can you tell an Arab from an Hispanic-American, an Italian-American, or a Native American?

Bush has been vocal in denouncing attacks against Arab-Americans but actions speak louder than words. Attacks are not limited to physical beatings. They can come through in the form of a request from a flight attendant to be seated in economy despite having paid for a first class ticket. Or a cancelled interview from an employer stating "We're not hiring persons from that region." On that note most firms can afford to discriminate without offering a reason. For those with Middle Eastern names there may always be questions raised upon receipt of yet another rejection letter.

Some of you may have seen a documentary titled "Jane Elliott - The Australian Eye" in which Australian subjects are exposed to the harrowing effects of racism by experiencing, through a simple exercise, how it feels to be alienated by virtue of a physical characteristic. It has played on SBS on several occasions and I, for one, have never failed to highlight it in my trusty TV Guide.

Oh well, whatever we might think racial profiling will remain for quite some time, along with all the stereotypes and prejudices which flow from it. As is customary with those who are incapable of saying anything overtly memorable I'll leave you all with a quote from a third party, namely Rev. Martin Niemoller:

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

9:30pm and all is well ...

Or so I keep telling myself. I am not feeling much better, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep myself amused. Up until 8:30pm, I was feeling quite content on account of watching Myth Busters on SBS. However, the free-to-air television schedule has not shown much promise since then. The Dave Chappelle show is interesting in parts, brilliant even, but that voice just tends to grate in your head.

I don't have to be anywhere special this evening, yet I feel like shaving. Unusual as it sounds, this simple routine of masculinity has always had a soothing, refreshing effect. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I start work at 6:30am. This means waking at an un-Godly hour, downing a cup of sub-standard coffee, taking a shower, and - of course - running four layers of machine sharpened steel across my face at a time when I can hardly stand.

The act of shaving at early hours in the morning is not without benefit. For one, there is a greater kick to it than any cup of instant coffee. As I stand in front of the mirror, bleary eyed and sleepy, my mind subconsciously begins to calculate the risk of injury. Given how tired I am, it's not insubstantial. From the moment all four blades touch my skin, I know that it will be an ordeal simply to avoid injury. For one, how can any instrument equipped with four blades purport to be a 'safety razor'? Second, is it wise to have 'rubberised strips' to bring these four blades even closer to your skin? Third, do the Gillette/Schick engineers consider the very real possibility of serious razor burn when using a four bladed razor?

Some years back, I purchased a three bladed Schick Razor which was meant to 'mould' itself to the contours of your skin. If you're a guy, this is particularly useful when shaving around your chin. Anyway, the razor did not bend quite as readily as demonstrated in the advertisment. I had nightmares where I pictured myself in front of a mirror, pushing down hard on the handle so as to make the razor bend. I press too hard, feeling my hand slip. As I clear up the fog on the mirror, I see myself with no chin, my tongue dangling just below my neck. The only sound I here is 'Oh Schick, Schick Schick .. MOTHERF*CKIN Schick'.

I have been as sick as a dog for two days now.

The first sign that something was wrong came on Saturday morning. Upon waking, my ears were greeted by what appeared to be the dawn call of some exotic bird. Soon thereafter, I realised this to be the whistling sound caused by my wheezing.

It is now Monday and I am on an amazing cocktail of drugs:

• Antiobiotics: Klacid (one tablet twice a day); and
• Asthma Medication: Atrovent (1 unit dose vial thrice a day), Ventolin (1 unit dose vial thrice a day), Seretide (two puffs twice a day), Prednisolone (two tablets once a day).

It goes without saying that I am not doing too well. Should there be no improvement in my health by Thursday, it is a given that I will be hospitalised. Please understand that I am not feeling sorry for myself. I just wish there was someone to look after me ...

As a child, I was utterly stupefied by the love, affection and care my friends' parents bestowed upon their children in times of ill health. My parents showed no such 'paternal instincts'. At most, I would be dropped off near a medical centre and given loose change so as to facilitate my journey home by public transport. Moreover, my coughs, sneezes and sniffles were greeted with the utmost contempt, as if I had just made the mistake of breaking wind loudly during the peak point of a funeral service (e.g. lowering of coffin into the ground).

In light of the above observations, it beggars belief that I am not afflicted with a deep seated nurse fetish. Until today, I had not once entertained any such fantasy. This is fast starting to change though. As I lie in bed, a nebuliser mask affixed to my face, I realise that nothing would please me more than having a Mila Jovovich look-alike nurse pressing her warm cheek against my forehead to check for signs of a temperature. Of course, should she wish to provide me with a sponge bath, I would not be complaining in the slightest.

Reality is a far cry from fantasy and I know full and well that the above ruminations will not hold true any time soon. Having a nurse by my side, attractive or otherwise, will probably mean that I have taken a turn for the worse.

This whole episode has made me realise how much of a workaholic I have become in recent years. Despite only blowing 250 into a peak flow meter (trust me on this, it's a bad sign), I seriously considered dropping into work to attend a series of meetings. I mentioned this possibility to my treating physician and she looked at me as if I had the intelligence of a Big Brother housemate. Responding to her look of disbelief, I mentioned that I was a lawyer and her features softened. 'Oh', she replied ... 'I guess that explains your concern.'.

What I failed to mention was that I am a government lawyer. The world is not going to fall apart should I fail to show up for work for a day, or two weeks for that matter. Indeed, if the rumours surrounding public service employment are true, I can only be fired for: (a) having killed someone; or (b) having taken a dump in the Minister's shoe. In my life, opportunities to engage in either one of these activities are few and far between.

I am bored out of my mind sitting at home. Still, there is a perverse pleasure to be had in being stricken by illness:- laying in bed watching television, reading novels, sipping on honey and lemon drinks, etc. There is a perception that the world expects nothing from me aside from a timely recovery. I could not be more wrong. Work still calls up every few hours, asking for a legal opinion on the most minor of matters or enquiring about the whereabouts of a file which is seated in plain view on my desk. In addition, I know I can look forward to receiving the minutes of meetings which have no bearing on my work whatsoever. Somewhat perversely, certain colleagues of mine believe that sending work-related material to sick brethren is akin to a sign of affection. It means that they are thinking of you, that you have not left their thoughts, and that they realise just how important your contribution is to the workplace.

Well, f*** you.

I am SICK, ok? My primary concern right now is regularising my breathing, not briefs, memorandums, minutes, files etc. If you are in fact concerned about my well-being, bring me some chicken soup, rent a few DVDs on my behalf (esp those featuring Mila Jovovich), buy me an interesting novel. If you're so f*cking hell-bent on sending my paperwork, send me a bleeding 'Get Well' card. We work for one of the largest APS agencies around dude, there are over 5000 of us scattered around the world. Pass my work on to some guy who feels it's a long-standing public service tradition to leave work at 4:30pm. You know who I'm talking about, every second person who works on Levels 1-8.

Now, back to my ruminations on nurses and their warm cheeks ......

For several months now, I have been contemplating writing an essay titled ‘The Place of Coconuts and Bananas in a White Bread Society’. Prior to collectively raising your eyebrows in confusion, please understand that this is not a proposal for a fruitcake recipe. Rather, I am seeking to pen a satirical discourse on the immigration experience as it has affected Asians – namely persons from the subcontinent and South East Asia. As some of you are no doubt aware, Asian countries often experience something of a ‘brain drain’, as educated people in search of a better life (read ‘employment opportunities’) gravitate towards ‘whiter pastures’ (i.e. European/Anglo countries). Often these poor souls find it difficult to assimilate, and experience grave difficulty in abandoning their culture/tradition in favour of .. err .. blandness.

Anyway, the following is something of a preliminary attempt at the abovementioned essay. In due course, it will probably be added to and elaborated to form something more cohesive.

THE PLACE OF COCONUTS AND BANANAS IN A WHITE BREAD SOCIETY
Cultural Displacement in Western Countries

Just over twenty (20) years ago it dawned on me that coconuts and bananas would never be wholeheartedly accepted by the white breads, expect perhaps within the confines of a fruitcake. This is precisely the term some right wing white bread intellectuals now afford to those societies that actively pursue a multicultural agenda. Even in such 'fruitcake societies', acceptance is grudging at best as current world events do little to allay the fears of the white bread majority. In any event, some recourse must be had to the past to better facilitate an understanding of my existing views.

My parents best efforts to provide me a prestigious white bread education were first realized when I was only four (4) years of age. Already, my speech was perfectly lucid and I could greet guests in polite English tones masked only by the slightest hint of a British accent. Some of the white bread company present was suitably impressed. Others, however, expressed concern at the spectacle of a darkish immigrant child speaking the Queen's mother tongue with greater precision than their own offspring. In hushed tones, the latter mentioned individuals debated whether assimilation policies contributed towards a better Britain. One can only wonder whether they expected my talents to be expressed in the manner hypothesized below:

Mum: This is Sameer. He shows exceptionally skill for someone so young. Sameer, would you mind educating our guests on the recommended retail price of a packet of Marlboro Lights?

Young Coconut: Four pounds and twenty-five cents.

Dad: Amazing, isn't it? He can give an exact figure for the sale price of all tobacco products stocked in our grocery business in Sussex.

OK, perhaps I am exaggerating. Both my parents, although highly educated, spoke with a slight foreign accent back in those days. This fact alone rendered some white breads to presume them as being of markedly lower intellect. Indeed, if they were of low intelligence, surely the kids would be similarly dumb by default? Not quite. Coconuts often outperformed their white bread counterparts in all three levels of education - primary, secondary and tertiary. This led some white bread governments to re-evaluate the system for entry into university. Specifically, English was made a compulsory subject and social sciences featured more predominantly in exams. Some white breads once again began to excel, writing elaborately long, complex and philosophical essays on persons such as Foucault and Marx. These individuals are now known as 'Arts students' and are regarded with the utmost contempt in the modern business world.

Getting back to the story, it became apparent in coming months that I was indeed a coconut of the highest calibre. My sense of identity was fast being eroded by virtue of cultural displacement. Long years were spent grappling authoritarian English schools, cold and dreary weather, cheese on toast etc. All these factors contributed to my increasing sense of isolation. Thankfully, relief was to arrive in the form of a banana.

The banana had an interesting background and an unfortunately complex name that few could pronounce. His parents were Korean and he had spent several years in Germany prior to having made an appearance in Britain. The banana's English, like mine, was impeccable and attained at the cost of have purged all knowledge as regards cultural and ethnic heritage. To illustrate, the banana's understanding of martial arts was atrocious and in inverse proportion to his knowledge of European models. Unlike the coconut, however, the banana proved to be much more successful with white bread women. This was presumably due to the fact that bananas dressed much more fashionably and were further regarded as being possessed of 'Eastern mystique, sensuality and charm'. It was my guess that the banana learnt much of this through the countless pirated 'Category III' DVDs purchased from suspicious stores in the Chinatown district. The content of these discs is a matter better left unmentioned in civil company. In addition, the Banana’s parents forced him to partake in an inordinate amount of extra-curricular activities – the bulk of which comprised of piano lessons. As such, he was able to woo women with elaborate jazz and classical pieces. As a Coconut, I simply could not compete with this. It beggared belief that any woman would be seduced by the sight of an adolescent boy solving university level mathematical algorithms until the early hours of the morning. The Banana had this ability as well of course, but at least it was supplemented by artistic endeavours.

The banana and I happened to be quite prone to insult, whether deliberate or accidental. Speaking personally, my first few steps in London can be recalled with the utmost clarity. Soon after having disembarked from the plane my mother and I were greeter by a rather perturbed airhostess. With more than a hint of concern she was heard to state the following:

"What a beautifully trained monkey! He's all dressed up and everything too. However did you expect to get him past customs though?"

OK, so I was hirsute. What coconut wasn't? We were all brown, furry and utterly miserable at the thought of having commenced shaving at ten (10). Some of us took solace in a popular actor known as Sean Connery. In his heyday this fellow had a remarkably hairy back. Moreover, one of his movies saw him uttering a line from which most coconuts would forever draw comfort. The scene involved Connery in a hot tub with several Asian women, all of whom were understandably intrigued by his mass of chest hair. A Japanese agent commented that body hair was a novelty for Japanese women, as most had never encountered it before on their native men. Connery replied with: 'The Japanese have a saying. Birds don't nest in a bare tree.'

Bananas faced the opposite problem. Most would've experienced extreme difficulty in growing a beard, even if presented with litres of hair tonic and left on a desert island for several months. The male of the species often commenced shaving well after having reached his mid twenties. Adolescent banana males could only ever dream of growing a beard and secretly envied the goateed Kung Fu masters in old martial arts flicks. However, their abject contempt at a coconut's ability to walk into nudie bars aged fourteen (14) was much less guarded.

Anyway, my memories of the adventures had by the Banana and I are simply that – memories. Reminiscing about my youth serves no other purpose than reminding me how much I have changed. Indeed, I now have even less of an identity and virtually no sense of culture. Moreover, the Banana and I have since moved on. One can only speculate of his current existence. Should the assertions of a certain Professor Andrews from Macquarie University hold weight, one would assume that the Banana has over-excelled in life and is now managing a large number of Anglo-Celtic persons in a professional office environment (e.g. investment banking, management consulting).