If I was Lebanese, I would forever cringe at the unfortunate timing of the case of Bilal Skaf and his foul little gang. Here was the ultimate portrait of the disease that is racism - on both sides of the fence. As it was, there is an interesting cross-cultural observation to be made in the way in which it has now become the Lebanese community of Australia who have inevitably felt the wrath of the age of Terrorism. This is very particular to us - in no other Western country have the Lebanese been associated with anti-Muslim sentiment in the same way it has inevitably panned out, here.  And this is quite unfair. The Lebanese exist in larger numbers than most Muslim communities of Australia, and they certainly have a myriad of social problems to contend with (but, as usual, we ignore the basis of most of these - one of which is the social disadvantages of being an ethnic minority). But terrorism is not one of these. 

 

But firstly, the Lebanese were the one community that already had a racial tension present in this country (though on a much smaller scale than it stands, today). I'd heard a few times, whilst living in Sydney - though it was never prominent - that Brighton Beach was "full of Lebs"; and though it was often mentioned with clear racial aversion, there was never any distinct reason given to this aversion, and I considered it on par with the racism that one finds in anglo culture, in regards to any nationality that makes a strong presence and collective in a suburb (Pyrmont was "full of Japanese; Redfern was "full of aboriginals" - I'd even heard people sneer that Surry Hills was "full of pommies"). Racism has always been here; regardless of our move towards the ideals of multiculturalism, racism has never actually gone away, and we have long been known in other countries - particularly in Europe - as a racist country (something we came face to face with, when Hanson first damaged our global PR). There was racism already pre-existing this era; but at very least, it was confined to areas in and around the Lebanese communities. Here in Newcastle, for example, there is only a very small presence of the Lebanese, and I had never heard of any aversion to them - until recently, of course (my neighbour, who runs the cafe next door, had "fuck off Lebo cunt" written across his menu - despite the fact that he's Morrocan).

 

And then, a horrible twist of fate. Bilal Skaf and his gang were captured for their hideous sex crimes, and though we didn't know it at the time, a seed was planted that would ironically grow stronger in recent times than it did when the crimes and trial actually happened. It's not like there have never been gang rapings in this country. There has been many, and most of them (though we choose to ignore it, now) are white crimes we hear very little about. Truth be told, most rape cases in this country are unsuccessful in courts, and media hardly ever picks up on them. But not this one. Granted, it was particularly brutal (but in all fairness, it's difficult to rate the brutality of any rape, regardless of the context); but this case became a media circus, and one year before the planes would hit the twin Towers, Australia engaged with racial and cultural tensions that were centred around Islaam. 

 

The sad reality of this case is that there was - regardless of racism towards "us" to be found in the crime - an obvious racism at play coming from the other direction, as well. Laws were rushed through, specifically aimed at assuring a conviction - which, on one hand, was great. But why were these laws passed, now? There has never been a greater sense of urgency or attention given to a rape case, nor were the victims of the crime ever given such care (something that has since reverted to a system where victims of sex crimes are treated horrendously on the stand).  The boys cried racism. And while they certainly deserved conviction, and little sympathy, it doesn't discount that the dots were easy to join, and the case was being presented through media as an example of racism towards Australians that somehow represented all Lebanese men (for a crime commited by a handful out of literally thousands and thousands of Australian Lebanese), and without ever exploring why young men of another nationality would have such racial resentment that would vent itself in the most hideous way, or indeed why they were given such special treatment and attention by the Australian legal process, when it had never given it to other equally valid rape cases. 

 

This exploded when Skaf refused legal representation on the grounds that "all anglo lawyers are racist". As it was, this clearly evidenced that the mal-adjustment of this young man (his psychological poison that would result in the depravity of systematic gang-raping) was centred around feelings of racial discrimination and displacement in a society that was set against him for no other reason than his race and religion. But more importantly, we saw something most ominous at work (a horrible portrait, considering that the words of this criminal were inevitably proved by the media, political and public response), when this tiwst in the Skaf case was utterly misrepresented, and manifested as an untruth within the public mythology of this case - a mythology that lives on today, and one that reared its head on Cronulla beach. The myth that grew from this was the belief that Skaf had claimed that he could not be tried by an Australian court of law, because under Sharia law, raping women was acceptable practice. Not only is this untrue of Sharia law, anyway - it was not what happened in the case (he simply denied a lawyer on the grounds that he would be given a white anglo lawyer who he feared would misrepresent him, due to racism - not at all how it was presented). But if I had a dollar for every time someone's racist justification of anti-Lebanese sentiment has boiled down to the example of a Muslim rapist who explained his actions away through an acceptance of Muslim law, I'd be a rich man. In the ABC documentary on the Cronulla riots, the Australians inteviewed (who were among the most active and violent in the riots) used this myth as a justification of the horrible events of that day.

 

Thankfully, by the end of this trial, Skaf and his thugs were put behind bars; but sadly, the Lebanese of this country had suffered great damage through the generalisations this case had created within the anglo-Australian public. It was bad enough, as it was. But a year later, two planes would fly into those towers, and it would all soon become much worse. Combined, the stage was set amongst a people now angry, threatened and completely misguided. By the end of 2005, a small Sydney beach-side community had grown fearful of the presence of young Lebanese on their beaches (they were largely driven there because their own areas were already being squeezed out by the infamously brutal Bra Boys - who quite conveniently painted themselves as heroes when it all finally went down), and after an incident involving a punch-up between local lifeguards and a group of Lebanese men (that apart from not being terribly unusual - I've seen many fights between boys on and around the beaches of this area, and nobody blinks an eyelid - were investigated and dealt with by police who declared there was no ethnic motivation to the crime), decided to take action into their own hands. SMS texts were circulated, at first by three nationalist organisations, The Australia First party, The Patriotic Youth League (who, a year earlier, had shown their faces at my local university here in Newcastle, by literally stoning and raping young women at the univeristy who wore the hijab - it was hushed over by the uni and received minor attention by the local press), and the charmingly titled Blood and Honour Organisation. The first text read; "Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge. This Sunday every Aussie in the Shire get down to North Cronulla to support Leb and wog bashing day."

 

Nevermind that none of these organisations had any ties to the Cronulla area, and that they only became familiar with the growing tension through news reporting that had ran with the initial incident with the life-guards as a standard "the police don't take enough action" story with racial overtones. Within 48 hours of the texting, the Daily Telegraph ran with the stroy under the lovely headline, "Give Us Back Our Beaches". And soon after, Alan Jones took to the airwaves, supporting the text message, and effectively promoting and sanctioning a race riot (nice going, nancy boy). And of course, every story made explicit reference to the Skaf case. While there was never a single other reported incident other than the altercation with the lifeguards (which had nothing to do with rape), the idea was blatantly put out there that the presence of Lebanese on our beaches was tied with a Lebanese tendency to gang-rape Aussie girls, and within days of this (but it's always so telling when quotes follow the ideas put out by media, instead of the other way round) there were quotes from locals suggesting that girls had been hassled by the Lebanese boys on the beach - though it was only ever "heard", and nobody ever - to this day - came forward to tell of a personal experience. On the ABC documentary, one of the girls involved in the riot justified this idea by telling the story of her friend (another second-hand depiction) who had been verbally harassed by a group of Lebanese boys on the beach. In the end, after all the talk, that was it. And as it is, go to the beach in a bikini, and see how many boys whistle and make passing, sexually oriented comments. It's not okay - I put up with having to see and hear it, every time I go to the beach, here, and it disgusts me; but it's not an ethnic phenomenon. We live in a culture that has glorified this same activity by anglo-men as bizarrely "Aussie" (the same behaviour of anglo construction workers, harassing the women who walk by the scaffolding, has been long depicted with great affection and acceptance by television and advertising - even Bonds, true blue Aussie icon it is, has used the sexual harrassment of women as a humorous sales pitch). No, this idea was no coincidence. The media had duly reminded us what Bilal Skaf had taught us - that Lebanese men rape women, and furthermore, are supported by Muslim culture in doing so (unlike our own culture that has apparently never glorified or promoted the sexual objectification of women). 

 

And, but of course, we were reminded that one of the 9/11 hijackers was... drumroll... Lebanese. Never mind that 50% of the Australian Lebanese community are Christian. And never mind that 14 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis (they're to be forgiven and ignored, because their country doesn't mind letting us fuck them over for their oil). Inevitably, it was Alan Jones that made the now infamous, grossly generalising connection to the "problem" of Lebanese men attending Cronulla beach; "I'll tell you what sort of grubs these were... they were middle eastern grubs". 

 

On the 11th of December, after Jones and the media had created more PR for the riot than all the funding of the nazi groups who organised it put together, thousands of young Australians gathered on Cronulla beaches. They soon spotted a man of middle eastern appearance (who had nothing whatsoever to do with the lifeguard incident, and was singled out purely for his race), and chased him to a hotel, where he was brutally beaten by the mob. Thus, it began. The rest, as they say, is history. Australian history. Very recent Australian history. And what was the symbol of this riot? What held them together, cloaked their hatred, fueled and justified their violence and aggresion?

 

The Australian flag.

 

In the most horrible (but hardly suprising) display of Howard's hypocrisy and valuing of delusional PR over truth, he declared, to the amazement of anyone with a brain, that the mob had not acted out of racial motivation. What did little Johnnie put it down to? "I do not see this as a racial issue... (but) a combination of a large group of people and alcohol". An interesting interpretation, considering the very context of The Big Day Out that would, a year later, lead organisers to fear the possibilities of a large gathering of drunk Aussies in the context of national pride. But of course, to little Johnny, the national pride part was incidental. That the mob cloaked themselves in the Australian flag and wore it on t-shirts with such slogans painted across the flag as "Ethnic cleansing day" was an irrelevant factor that had no meaning. But then again, this is the man who wouldn't say "sorry". Facing racial tensions has never been Johnny's thing, let's face it. I'm so glad this is the man leading this great nation of ours. I'm so... proud.

 

But, sadly, he does represent a large problem in this society. When the Big Day Out flag scandal broke last week, it inevitably ended in a range of disclaimers (all of which came after the initial outcry, mind you), including the familiar dismissal and what has now become the favourite way for mainstream media to present the flag-bearers in response to the type of symbolism: that it was important for us to "reclaim" the flag from the symbolic implications of the use of the flag in the Cronulla riots. Too little, too late, as far as I'm concerned; and useless, so long as we are unable to rationally confront that, like it or not, the Australian flag has become a symbol of racial hatred and discrimination. I'm all for the lovely ideal of "reclaiming the flag as a symbol of harmony", etc, etc, but I just don't see it. How can we possibly be confronting this "mis-use" and addressing it, if we cannot so much as logically discuss the reality of a national event that has sighted problems with the flag for good reason? Last year, there were many reports from The Big Day Out that involved violence and "anti-social behaviour" that was carried out under the guise and "support" of the Australian flag. When I went to the Big Day Out, all those years ago, I didn't see a single flag (or very few, at least - certainly none that I recall). But last year, a week after the riots, the presence of the flag was felt at this event, and it was clearly connected to something most undesirable and downright dangerous. Quite understandably - quite admirably, as far as I'm concerned - the organisers wanted to move their event away from this connection. They moved the day so that it didn't fall on the actual Australia Day, and decided to remove the flag from the proceedings. This should have been the point where we all stopped, and had a good, long look at what has been happening in this society. Our flag - once, a symbol of a diverse nation that strived for social harmony (however poorly at times), has come to this. The Big Day Out had decided to ban it to protect it's mostly young patrons. That says something quite horrific - but not about the promoters of The Big Day Out. It says something horrible about... look out, here's that word, again... us.   

 

But we don't like looking at us. It's all very well for the media to churn out their happy stories of a people reclaiming the flag, etc, fucking etc, but that's not what just happened. It's not even close to what happened. As it is, it shows our new mentality with the symbolism of the flag - that it no longer acts as a unifier of a diverse range of ideas of what it "is" to be Australian. In the "us versus them" era - in a monoculture - the flag can only be one thing. Either you're with it, or against it. Either you fly it, or you don't. Firstly, perhaps this country couldn't fathom the idea that the flag had taken a form for people that did not conform to some uniform ideal we have of what it "is" to be Australian. Or secondly, and much worse (and I'd suggest largely at the core of this), we didn't like it being put in our face that what the flag now symbolised for us was in any way "wrong". That's why we don't like to talk about the Cronulla riots (what amazed me in all this was that it reminded us that the riot was only a year ago; thanks to our uncanny ability to pretend it never happened - in contrast to a media that refuses to let us forget Balil Skaf, which happened over six years ago - it actually feels like much longer ago that the riots occured), and despite the blatant connection between the banning of the flag from Big Day Out and this horrible December day, it was mentioned very little in the barrage of press that followed in the lead up to the actual event (and the people I heard discussing both Cronulla and the Big Day Out, minus the overblown emotion and anger, were, ironically, the people I know who are not the slightest bit racist). We discussed in our exploration of the Michael Richards incident, the dynamic of a dual state of racism - the politically correct awareness that covers racism with a superficial pose of tollerance that hides a racist truth within that is required to be sublimated in order to thrive (ironically, the critics of The Big Day Out threw the "political correctness gone mad" line around - but I actually think the insanity of political correctness is more evident in their response than it is in Big Day Out's actions). We "know" racism is "wrong". We like very much to carry on about how we are not racist. And when we're caught out? When something, such as this incident, puts it to us, fair and square, that racism is alive and well, and unfairly threatening members of our supposedly great society? We don't handle it very well. And in the last week, this country didn't. We saw every politician but a single, brave (sadly, irrelevant) democrat, come out and exploit our inability to confront our racism for nothing more than poll-chasing. Howard threatened to ban the banning! Then, he spotted an opportunity to deflate the power of the left with young people (something he knows is quite integral to maintaining his power), and made the disgustingly misleading, unnecessarily inflamatory comments (quite deliberately) that the Big Day Out was doing nothing more than making a political statement against this great nation (Look out, everyone! The Big Day out are commies! Or are they terrorists?! Oh, it's so confusing!). Rudd made the remarkably ignorant comment that what should be banned was not the flag but "the moronic behaviour" (blatantly dismissing and ignoring the connection between the two). And before long, we had other politicans wanting to make the flag legally compulsory for Australia Day, and then - but of course - out came Pauline. But we didn't lampoon and crucify Miss Hanson, this time. Times, my dear friend, have changed. This time, the nation agreed with her. How proud does that make you?

 

To further illustrate the changes in our society, let us also remember that not too long ago, this nation engaged in debate over the changing of our flag. There was a public and political dialogue on the matter - there were even hypothetical competitions, and various designs being thrown around to gage the public response to any change, and what flag they would choose to replace the current flag with, if this eventuated. The discourse was certainly heated, at times, and ultimately, the flag remained; but regardless, we managed to at least have the discussion in a relatively civil manner. Compare that to today! In 2007, in a week where the nation went into distress and rage over a rock concert who endeavoured to protect patrons because of a clear reality (hello!? Twelve months ago this country had a race riot - a fucking race riot, people - which happened under the banner of the Aussie flag), it is utterly unfathomable that we would, or could, have a debate on whether we should forsake the flag, altogether. If you went back in time, and sat down beside yourself as you discussed with your friends if we should change the flag, and if so, what should we change it to (should we incorporate the aboriginal flag? Should we keep the symbolic visual ties to England?), and you told yourself about what would eventually happen in 2007 to the public discourse regarding the flag - in that next, supposedly glorious century - you probably wouldn't believe it. I'd tell myself to fuck off, and stop pulling my leg. But it's 2007, and it happened.