Empathy

I had a rough week this week. On Monday my son had a fever for 24 hours and we had to wrestle panadol into him a couple of times - and then give him a marshmallow. On Tuesday my human resources manager sucked particularly hard at her job. I did an extra hour or two of paperwork. Today, my train was cancelled. I wasted away on a crowded city platform for half an hour (So, really bad right?). You know who else had a rough week – everyone who lives in the Gaza strip - the subject of Israel’s latest military excursion, Operation Protective Edge.

The Gaza Strip, which shares borders with Egypt, Israel and the Mediterranean (an area of only 360 km² … about the same as The Shire), is home to an estimated 1.8 million Palestinians. Mired in poverty, the average yearly income of this region is something like US$3500 per person. Crammed together in shanty towns at a population density 1.5 times higher than downtown Shanghai, unemployment is between 30 and 40% and prospects for any other life are non-existent. For survival, the Gazans rely heavily on foreign aid and directly on Israel for electricity and the movement of people and goods in and out of the strip. Oh yeah, and they just got their asses invaded by Israel (again) – with tanks, ground troops, air strikes, the whole shebang. This is already starting to make my week sound better right…

For brevity, let me oversimplify a complex and sordid backstory:  1) following democratic elections in 2006, the Palestinians elected Hamas – internationally renowned missile launching and suicide bombing organisation, funded by such luminaries as Saudi Arabia and Iran; 2) obviously this was frowned upon by Israel and the West, accentuated by Hamas reprisals within Gaza directed towards Palestinians previously associated with Fatah; 3) Israel perform airstrikes and a ground invasion in early 2008, killing 110; 4) In response to thousands of Hamas rockets, Israel invade again in December 2008, killing up to 1400 (~900 were civilians) Palestinians and decimating their infrastructure (hospitals, greenhouses, roads, schools etc); 5) in 2010, Israel’s control of airspace and the sea led them to blockade Gaza in collective punishment for ongoing Hamas rocket attacks. Now, regional scholars and historians will have to forgive such a brush stroke re-telling – but you get the idea… Hamas launch rockets into Israel, who then invade the shit out of them.

My problem with this, as should be obvious, is that this is not a war - it’s a massacre. Hamas have rockets, arguably homemade, and inarguably ineffective now that Israel has its ‘Iron Dome’ missile defence system. Though the number of rocket attacks sounds impressive, Israeli casualties are few and rare – Hamas is pissing on a bushfire. In response, the tin shacks and recently rebuilt infrastructure is decimated by bulldozers, tanks, apache helicopters, airstrikes and ground troops – disproportionately affecting civilians, and children. For their part, the most vocal in the international area – and especially the US – unequivocally support Israel and their ‘right to defend themselves’. From the safety of my white, middle class, non-apache helicopter life – I find this grotesque and paralysing in its sadness.

To be clear this article is neither pro-Hamas nor anti-Semitic, or is it meant to assign blame for what is a decades old conflict. Above all, it is an appeal for a shred of empathy – a defining emotion which has seemingly disappeared from our politics. If I was an unemployed Palestinian, travelling through checkpoints all day, I would conceivably support Hamas. If my brother was taken and tortured by security forces I could see myself firing a rocket at my oppressors. If my son was killed by a misguided airstrike, I couldn’t rule out travelling by underground tunnel to Israel to blow myself up. Helpless people do desperate things, leading them to collective and disproportionate punishment – a position certainly deserving of our empathy if nothing else.

The Peace Candidate

Any reader, constant or otherwise, will appreciate my deeply held dislike of Tony Abbott. It isn’t due to any one factor. It’s partly the religious conservatism guiding his politics, but also the misogyny, the xenophobia and his rejection of scientific enquiry. It’s his pride in leading the Party of No and his smugness at being a full-time obstructionist, devoid of an original thought. However, despite this staunchly consistent track record I have conceived of a situation where I’d do the previously unthinkable: vote for him.

In a two-party democracy (I like the Greens, but they are not a 3^rd way just yet) if the parties take the same position – the issue is dead. In the US, such classics as maintaining military spending, supporting Israel at all costs and pursuing the pointless drug war are prominent examples. Here, demonising boat people, opposing marriage equality and hating Christopher Pyne are pretty unanimously held positions. Then of course there is the war in Afghanistan, off the table since the November 2010 parliamentary debate ended in galvanised agreement that we would stay to the ‘end’. While our ANZAC allies prepare for an ahead of schedule April 2013 exit – there is currently no political will to move forward our planned 2014 pull-out – an no guarantee that mission creep will not see the deadline adjusted further.

When we joined the war in 2001, some of the goals set forth made sense. Remove the Taliban from power, disrupt al-Qaeda’s operations and find Osama Bin Laden. However, a decade on, these three goals in particular have been achieved and we are left with the open-ended task of training Afghan security forces to support the democracy we have transplanted there.  Our involvement, aside from the financial burden (US estimates are $1 million per soldier, per year) – 240 of our soldiers have been wounded and 38 killed. The list is a depressingly bleak run down (read it here): IED, small arms fire, green on blue attack, helicopter crash. With goals less clear and with the trainees increasingly murdering our trainers – we should be wondering, how many more Australians are we prepared to lose?

This week, Liberal backbencher Mal Washer, whom I’ve never heard of, made some of the most sensible comments I’ve ever heard a Lib utter: "the question is, politically, why are we continuing this? Why are we risking more lives when if you've been there for 10 years and this is the result of it - what's the point of staying any longer? Do you think one more year is going to make a difference?” Amen. His party has immediately distanced themselves from his ‘rogue’ comments – but I sense opportunity. Now I’m a patriot. I support our troops. Their bravery and worth to this country greatly exceed my own. And accordingly, they should come home. Today.

I saw a clip this week of US Republican (and libertarian) Ron Paul on Bill Maher, talking about a restrained non-interventionist foreign policy (see here). To distill his message into a bumper sticker: the peace candidate always wins. The people cry out for it when they get to see the costs of war. So Tony, though you are amongst my most hated politicians, and though your climate change denying, workplace reforming, homophobic agenda pains me greatly – be the peace candidate, promise to bring the troops home – and you got my vote.

Courage

It should come as no surprise to any of us that perennial Cowardly Lion and conservative darling Alex Hawke should rise this week in parliament to offer the same tired arguments for the ongoing discrimination of his fellow Australians, based on their sexual orientation. Ceasing to be a nemesis of any intellectual depth (or even capable of an occasional novel thought), Hawke served only as a mouthpiece for the same trite justifications that the Right insists on clinging to in their stand against equality. While recent evidence points to an IQ deficiency as an important factor in conservative thinking – I will press on as though Alex and his brethren can be reasoned with.

Hawke was roused from his comfortable, affluent and largely white (homogenous) slumber by two private member’s bills (including a Bandt/Wilkie one) to be introduced to legalise gay marriage. The main tenant of his opposition (and of the Right’s) seems part historical precedent, part procreation. My first appeal though would be to drop the bullshit and just come right out and say “the bible told me so”. Hawke is transparently and enthusiastically affiliated with the Hillsong Pentecostal megachurch, bible literalists “teaching homosexuality is unnatural, opposing embryonic stem cell research and abortion on the basis that human life commences at conception” (They are also creationists and want it taught in schools… my enduring pet hate). We need not look far for the source of his illogical anti-gay message – but we should at least expect honesty about its origins (he should also pipe down on the procreation line, given that the 34 year old has no kids of his own).

In Hawkes ‘intensive research’ (its fine for me to use Wiki Alex – but you’re an MP – get an intern to do some real research), he cites the Californian referendum question (known as Prop 8) that banned gay marriage in that state (which was just overturned and heads to the Supreme Court)… and that only 10 countries and 7 US States allow it – as an indication of its non-mainstream nature. The US is an interesting case and indicative of the turning tide in favour of equality – almost certainly serving my case better than Hawkes. The 7 states have come on board in less than a decade, with additional legislative measures succeeding in Washington state and New Jersey (though their fat Republican governor is vowing a veto). Most importantly though, public opinion passed parity in 2011 – meaning a majority now support gay-marriage. Multiple polls here in Australia suggested an even larger majority in support (see Wiki). Perhaps Hawke needs to check his definition of ‘majority’.

Hawke’s conservatism on gay marriage is fundamentally flawed. First, had he a shred of insight, he’d appreciate that in championing small government and opposing the allegedly encroaching Nanny State (see his opposition to plain paper packages for cigarettes) – a non-hypocritical stance on same-sex couples should be one of equality. It isn’t the government’s role to interfere. Second, change for minorities rarely (if ever) comes through referendums, or majority support. As I saw Rev Al Sharpton recently say, if he had waited for the majority to award civil rights to black Americans, he’d still be sitting at the back of the bus – justice requires political leaders who will show leadership and moral courage to bring about change. Unfortunately for Australia (and for our Cowardly Lion in particular), courage is in short supply – and the Wizard sometimes seem far, far away.

Quit Whining.

After a decade of hand wringing and backsliding, Australia finally seems set to take (some) proactive action on climate change. Prime Minister Gillard announced at the weekend that our 500 largest polluters will be taxed $23 per tonne of carbon emissions, effective from July 1, 2012. She has spent much of her time during this ‘debate’ fending off Tony Abbott’s never-ending fear campaign and the similarly limitless stream of dumbass questions from reporters and the public. The PM has also endured a near constant press barrage, continued (bullshit) snap polling (of 500 randoms) and that pillar of journalism the Daily Telegraph running uniformed headlines on a loop. To her credit she has pressed on, compromised with the Greens (praise be to Bob) and has the numbers to turn a plan into a law.

The premise for those who haven’t been playing at home is simple. Currently, industry is under regulated, particularly with respect to the environment and is generally free to pollute as they like. The new carbon tax provides an economic incentive for big business to try a little harder to not rape and pillage the planet – and over time they might sort their shit out. That’s it. Unfortunately a number of Abbott and industry-based misconceptions remain clouding the issue – that is, until I set them straight.

1. Jobs will be lost.

Sure they will – they often are. There was a little event in our relatively recent past called the Industrial Revolution. During this period rafts of jobs were lost, and new ones created. I’m sure at the time there were some calls to defend the jobs of Johhny Blackmith and Charlie Milliner – but at the end of the day, the greater good caused us to march on. As I’ve said previously we can already foresee a clearly defined time when coal miners jobs will be at stake – like when the coal runs out. The mines and plants won’t be shuttered overnight, but they will ultimately close. They call that the circle of life. Importantly, mining jobs won’t immediately move overseas either. The thing about mining is that you have to locate your mine in the vicinity of the minerals (preferably).

2. Households will pay more.

We always seem to – tax or not. With respect to energy, prices have risen on the back of the mass privatisation of the power sector and the now de-regulated nature of the pricing. The government monopoly has merely been replaced by collusive private companies and has not had the desired effect of increasing competition. Irrespective of this, the Gillard plan provides a range of tax cuts and family payment/pension increases that they propose will see most people break even or be slightly better off (and then they get accused of Socialism!) At any rate, I support pricing electricity at a level higher than ‘cheap’, in order to encourage usage cuts – oh, wait, where have I heard that idea before?

3. Other countries aren’t onboard.

No, not all of them are. China isn’t. India couldn’t give a fuck. They are both too busy dragging their mega-populations out of poverty. In contrast our political stability and wealth give us the luxury of considering the way we do business. Not only is it morally right, it’s the fundamental choice between being a leader and a follower. We can drag our feet and sulk (the official Liberal policy) – or we can innovate and have a go (which is more ‘Australian’ Tony?). The idea of an investment fund for renewable technology already has venture firms re-gearing and plotting the best way to be on the ground floor of the next big thing. My feeling is that if we invent usable, practical solar technology for instance, our old friends China will be banging down our doors to buy it.

What we should be focused on is how many concessions have already been made - only 500 companies are to be taxed, coupled with significant exemptions to key polluters like agriculture and fuel – and how we best press for more effective reform. Instead, Abbott and now O’Farrell remain committed climate-change deniers, and scare-mongers. Worse, some random Liberal MP who I’ve never heard of - Sophie Mirabella – tried to get her name in the paper by saying Julia Gillard was as deluded as Gaddafi if she thinks Australians want a carbon tax. Evidently, Sophie is our Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research… I’d laugh if I wasn’t so scared.

And so, I call upon the nation to quit whining, pay a few extra bucks a week (should that come to pass) and do something proactive for the planet. The Libs are selling fear and more of the same – our PM is proposing the hard road, and the high road – I’m with her.

Actual Evil

The Bush Administration talked at length about Evil – the capital-E type that has to be fought on a global scale. Terrorists are Evil and the countries that harbour them formed an Axis of Evil. Saddam Hussein was Evil, sometimes Islam itself is Evil along with Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic Congress. Sadly, this hyperbole was not only counterproductive foreign policy, but was a cover for much more tangible acts by the Administration that were a much better fit for the definition of evil. Vice President Cheney, long stereotyped by the left as a black hearted villain, has his fingerprints all over the worst of it and has more than earned his reputation.

Some of the worst damage was done (to the environment anyway) when George Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation - introduced by Texas Republican Joe Barton, Tea Party member, Oil industry shill and bona fide global warming denier – sought to provide direction for the future of US energy. However, the bill basically packaged subsidies and incentive for oil companies (including some to drill in the Gulf of Mexico) and the nuclear industry, very much at the expense of the environment and common sense. The most damning provision: the “Halliburton loophole” which exempted Big Oil from oversight by the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Air Acts (and EPA) – effectively giving them free rein to pollute as they please in pursuit of oil and gas. The loophole is named for the biggest benefactor Halliburton, an oil and gas multi-national formerly run by none other than Dick Cheney.

Nauseating as this appears already, I haven’t got to the kicker yet. Josh Fox’s documentary Gasland details how the loophole has been exploited in particular to extract gas from America’s widespread shale deposits, using hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ (it’s a must watch doco, which I will not remotely do justice here). In short, the gas companies pump a shit load of pressurised fluid (and chemicals) into their gas wells to fracture the rock layer and release their bounty. Two problems. The first is that they were never obligated to release the ingredients in their fracking mixture. The second is that the majority of the fluid leaks into the water table – causing people’s drinking water to catch fire! Turns out that typical fracking fluids contain a range of known carcinogens, toxins, alcohols and hydrocarbons – all of which are a bad idea to drink, breathe or be near. Gasland documents a number of poisoned (and flammable) water supplies, dead animals, sick humans and fracked wells as far as the eye can see. It also shows the widespread denial of this problem, the power of the gas lobby and the paralysis of the US Congress (The FRAC Act, closing the Halliburton loophole has languished without a vote since January 3, 2011).

Come the end of Gasland, I was too angry to speak. For the sake of corporate profits, under the cloak of job creation and energy independence, 38 US states have now been pillaged by fracking. The scale of the problem defies comprehension. To add insult to injury, Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security is lobbying on behalf of the gas industry to take fracking to Pennsylvania. While he claims not to be a lobbyist, he recently described fracking as harmless and claimed that flaming taps were a naturally occurring phenomenon. I hope he chokes on his fat salary. In closing, this kind of ignorance to scientific fact (ie, what is carcinogenic and what is not) has become the hallmark of so many of our bad decisions from creationism to climate change denial. While most prevalent in the US, I’m afraid to say that both fracking and stupidity are cropping up more and more here in Australia.

The Illusion of Choice

Muammar Gaddafi is a madman no doubt, and one hell of a son-of-a-bitch. I’m one of many who welcomed the hail of 124 Tomahawk cruise missiles that signalled the end of his massacre of his own people (by some estimates, this kind of ‘freedom’ retails for only $186 million). Still, when reading Gaddafi’s political manifesto The Green Book the other day, I was struck by at least one semi-sane observation – Western democracy does not deal in freedom in the strictest sense, but merely provides the illusion of choice. His example of a referendum was most interesting: the people vote (providing the smoke and mirrors), while usually only two options are given (providing the stitch-up).

Now, reiterating that Gaddafi is madder than a hundred hatters – and emphasising that much of his Green Book is racist, impractical and at times downright offensive – in this particular instance I think his point is a valid one. Our recent shambles of a State election serves as a nice example. Dissatisfied with the corrupt and inept Labor Party, the people swept them aside and replaced them with Barry O’Farrell’s Liberals. If not for cardboard cut-out Peter Debnam, this would’ve happened 4 years ago. This issue is not that Labor got shafted, but that we have merely traded one bunch of do-nothing bullshit artists for another – and really what choice is that?

Commuting in the lead up to the elections I was frequently accosted by Liberal pamphlet-handlers looking to cover the considerable spread required to claim my seat. One particularly brave soul stopped me to ask the secret to winning my demographic – who he claimed were particularly reluctant to accept his paper propaganda. If I could name one thing that would make me vote Liberal, what would it be? Easy, I say. Make the fucken trains run on time. Make them run when it rains, and not sputter to a halt when it’s too hot. Put some millennium trains on the long trek to Campbelltown – and run some more services so that I don’t feel like I’m being crammed in enroute to Auswitch every day after work… mid rant it hit me then – not only had Labor let me down for nearly two decades, but there wasn’t a single thing the Libs could do to make a lick of difference. The trains are shit and will always be, until I gather the MX-deadened plebs and lead them to revolt.

In the meantime, what am I proposing? Certainly not Gaddafi’s popular committees (for direct democracy) – because try as I might they make almost zero sense. More likely I think we’d be better off disbanding State Government all together. The sole purpose they seem to serve is to antagonise their Federal counterparts (if from the opposite party) or blindly support them (if of the same). Oh, that and get completely drunk with the ‘power’ that only comes with the front bench of our State government – the power to sell of State owned assets, push through crooked land deals and abuse waiters at Iguana Joes. Wiping out state governments all together will see a sharp decline in the amount of pointless current affairs interviews I have to wade through, dramatically cut the percentage I’m lied to about improving my hospitals – and is just the kind of public sector job trimming that I can really get behind.

Raise My Taxes

We live in mediocre financial times. Thanks to the giant dicking handed out to us by bankers and Wall Street types, economies the world over are struggling – with even the might US economy hit hard. Discounting the fact for the time being that the mega-gambling that brought us here continues unabated (and not a single CEO was brought to trial) the GFC is the current go-to excuse to slash budgets and dodge investment projects. Budgetary considerations have provided cover for Republican Governor Scott Walker to dismantle teacher’s unions in Wisconsin, for national Republicans to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and even Obama to cut ‘socialist programs’ that provide food and heating oil to poor people. In short, budget deficits have signalled an all out assault on the all that the Left (I mean actual Left, Barrack) holds dear – and I fear that the Right are just getting warmed up.

The budget slashing bent that is so gripping the US is accentuated by the insistence of both parties to neither cut defence spending (over $700 Billion and ~20% of the total) – nor to raise taxes, even on those earning over $250k a year (the famed ‘Bush Tax Cuts’). The blind alley that this leads to is that ultimately, budgets are balanced on the backs of those can least afford it (the poor, minorities, single parents etc)– and that major public services like hospitals, police, teachers, roads etc suffer. While cuts (or ‘savings’ as the British press is trying to re-brand them as) provide short-term relief from outright bankruptcy (44 of 50 states are looking at deficits) the deteriorating infrastructure becomes more costly to repair, and skilled state workers leave to pursue greener pastures. The time then has come for politicians to stop pretending that there are no other options – and commit to increasing revenue by raising taxes.

Now US Republicans have formed a pseudo-religion in recent times based around continued tax cuts ‘smaller government’ (whatever the hell that is) and trickle down (fuck they have some fancy euphemisms) economics - despite their Messiah Ronald Reagan’s actual history of raising them. As is often the case, Australia has been largely spared the worst of both the GFC and of the necessity to slash public sector budgets – though the aversion to tax increase (of any kind) runs true in most of our politicians, but especially so in our conservatives. The Abbott Liberals (much like their Republican counterparts) are fast becoming the party of No. Their feet dragging and hand wringing on the Flood Levy, in the wake of Cyclone Yasi is indicative of their scare-first, think last mentality. Following such a biblically-sized flood event Gillard’s Labor proposed (and eventually secured) a $2.88/week contribution from someone earning $80K – and nothing from those earning under $50K. Given that Abbott was neither divinely tipped off prior to the flood, nor did he hammer a single nail in pursuit of an Ark – that seemed like a pretty reasonable thing for those of us unaffected to do.

So while my Presidency will herald an age of utopian socialism (where your higher taxes translate to actual health care, education and transport) we should strive in the meantime for the best maintenance of the common good. In contrast to the ‘every man for himself’ narrative crammed down our throats by TV we should be collectively happy to forgo our cup of coffee or can of Mother (I’m looking at you Bogans) if it helps a Queenslander have somewhere to live again. The same goes for the carbon tax – though I’ll get to that.

No god but God

There is no religion that can lay claim to ‘clean hands’ in terms of violence, discrimination, corruption and so on – certainly not with any historical perspective, and not even if you want to restrict the debate to my lifetime. The major religions each harbour extremist elements in the present day: evangelical Christians restricting abortion access and persecuting gays; Israeli Jewish ‘settlers’ inching their way beyond internationally agreed borders and inciting violence, and the advent of the suicide bomber in the name of Islam. In line with a Dawkins-ian view of a religion-free world, each bears the responsibility for harbouring (if not abetting) these elements within their broader following. Despite the shared nature of evil in the name of religion, Islam has been called out for particular recrimination, particularly after September 11 (and the 2002 Bali Bombings for Australians).

In Australia, anti-Islamic sentiment is steadily rising, despite Muslims accounting for just 1.7% of the total population. In a recently released University of Western Sydney survey of racial attitudes NSW was found to be one of the least tolerant states, with nearly 55% of respondents expressing anti-Muslim attitudes. Though this number is maybe a little higher than I would’ve imagined (my faith in my fellow humans is often unrewarded) – it’s no surprise that Islam has become the go-to scapegoat for all manner of issues. The discrimination is endemic and regularly reinforced in forms as diverse as our nightly current affairs enema (eating a Halal sausage will make you a terrorist!), sitting members of Parliament (I’m looking at you, federal Liberal MP Kevin Andrews) and web-based nutbags such as those at the Australian Islamist Monitor (I offer no link, to discourage your traffic…).

Now, in the next few hundred words I appreciate the miniscule odds of changing a single mind already devoted to an anti-Islamic position – but I’m going to try nonetheless. I would begin by saying that I was personally disappointed in my own lack of knowledge of Islam – despite claiming to be a somewhat educated man. My starting position was one hobbled together from hearsay, myth and media. The Prophet, Saudi Arabia, burkas and bomb-vests… and I’m ashamed to say, very little else. This situation has marginally improved thanks to Iranian-American writer and scholar, Reza Aslan (if I get back into the swing of this, he might get a post of his own, but until then, check his site) and his history of Islam: No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. To be remotely cognisant in a debate around Islam, I would say it is required reading. To perhaps induce you to get a copy, I learnt the following critical things about Islam:

1. The Diversity of Islam

Tempting as it is to clump the approximately 1.5 billion followers into a single stereotype, they are anything but homogenous. Aside from geographic and ethnic differences (Arab, African, Asian etc), Islam is divided into Sunni, Shia, Sufi (and a range of smaller) denominations. The combination of these factors leads to the striking differences in practices we see between an Iranian Shia and Turkish Sunni (not even accounting for the different Sunni schools of thought). Suffice to say, they do not represent a united front.

2. Socialism and Egalitarianism

The founding principles of Islam extol religious pluralism, gender equality, economic socialism (with an emphasis on helping the poor) and war only for self defence. So the Qur’an says, Muhammad founded his movement in the oasis of Medina where he co-existed peacefully with Jews and Christians, empowered women and collected taxes to be redistributed amongst the tribe. Subsequent veiling and subjugation of women, clashes with Christianity and Judaism and the use of jihad as on offensive weapon are by-products of reinterpretations of Islam over 1500 years by power hungry misogynists. Something Christians should recognise all too well.

3. People of the Book

The Qur’an considers Jews and Christians (amongst others) to all worship the same true God of Abraham, and together with the Torah and Bible to complete Gods divine revelations to man. As such, they were not initially competing ideologies but highly inter-related (and it seems to me, largely based on very similar mythology). The People of the Book were originally allowed to live freely amongst Muslims, trading and working with them – as I alluded to in the case of Muhammad’s Medina. It struck me as rather amazing that such a gulf could have evolved over time – such that we now consider Islam and Christianity to not only be non-compatible, but in active conflict.

So then, I accept that the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden (and Muammar Gaddafi for that matter) are Muslims – of that there is no question. However, I would also contend that there are many more than a billion Muslims, who are peaceful, non-terrorists and that it is ignorant to judge the whole by a few (it’s preposterous to think that all Catholics are paedophiles… right?). At the very least, take the reasonable position of finding a fact or two about Islam before you leap on the hate bandwagon – keeping well in mind that their religion is at its root not that much different to yours.