Thursday, January 29, 2015

Babe 3-The touching story of the Dodo that thought he was a diplomat.......Greg Sheridan is no S.Rajaratnam

The same Greg Sheridan who could not see the Asian Crisis of 97/98 coming? And called Paul Krugman (and others) dodos for spelling out their weaknesses?

And the same Greg Sheridan who time and time again misreads even South East Asia?

Singapore would be insulted by the very thought that any country, even more so Australia ,would consider that some journalist would suffice as its high commissioner to their country.
Greg Sheridan is not S.Rajaratnam, and it is shocking that Tony Abbott, one time journalist cannot see the difference,and the insult this would have caused,not only to Singapore, but also to ASEAN.

Tony Abbott considered appointing The Australian's Greg Sheridan to plum posting

James Massola

January 30, 2015 - 1:44PM 

Prime Minister Tony Abbott considered his close personal friend, The Australiannewspaper's Greg Sheridan, for the plum posting of High Commissioner to Singapore after the 2013 election.

The possibility of the appointment was tightly held within the highest ranks of the Abbott government, though some senior Department of Foreign Affairs officials became aware of it.

Fairfax Media has been told that Mr Abbott and Sheridan discussed the position before the election and that it was formally considered by government after the 2013 poll.

But the newspaper's long-serving foreign editor, who has described Mr Abbott as his "best friend" during university days, turned down the job after discussing it with the newspaper's editor-in-chief, Chris Mitchell.

Mitchell confirmed to Fairfax Media on Friday that the offer had been made and "that's all there is to it. I talked him out of going and that his future is in journalism".

"Obviously Greg and I are personal friends, as are Greg and Tony, so I guess the offer was probably quite attractive but he has a pretty good job at the Oz too."

"I'm relaxed about it all. People get offered jobs by government all the time."

Contacted by Fairfax Media on Friday, Sheridan did not deny the appointment had been in prospect.

"There is nothing for me to say about it mate. I'm not interested in talking to you," he said.

News that the appointment was considered soon after the 2013 election may raise eyebrows in Coalition ranks and comes just days after Mr Abbott's disastrous decision to knight Prince Philip, which has prompted many Coalition MPs to question  the Prime Minister's judgment.

Sheridan and Mr Abbott were allies during their university days, with the pair on the same side during internal battles within the Australian Union of Students.

In 2012, Sheridan wrote that Mr Abbott was "my best friend at that time. We talked over everything. The meaning of life, the purpose of politics, who'd win the rugby league grand final, what girls we planned to ask out, petty squabbles we might have had with our parents".

Despite the pair being close, earlier this week Sheridan joined a chorus of criticism of the Prime Minister's "dismaying" decision to knight Prince Philip.

"It is wrong in principle, strategically mistaken and tactically disastrous," he wrote.

The current high commissioner is Philip Green, who unlike Sheridan is a career diplomat. Mr Green was a former chief of staff to Kevin Rudd during his days as foreign minister. He took up the posting in  November 2012.

Department of Foreign Affairs postings usually last for three years but they can run to as long as five years. Alternatively, postings can be cut short on the whim of the government of the day.

The process for appointing ambassadors and high commissioners involves the foreign minister making a recommendation to the prime minister, but it is up to the prime minister of the day to approve the appointment or make an alternative suggestion.

The Prime Minister's office has been contacted for comment.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

UK Government expected to move against the Muslim Brotherhood, while Australia actively protects,promotes its interest-Why?

To be read together with :

Downing Street set to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood

An unpublished report commisisoned by David Cameron into the Muslim Brotherhood will link it to up to 60 charities, groups and even television channels operating in the UK

upporters of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood take part in a rally to protest against the death penalties for the members of the radical group in Egypt, outside the Egyptian embassy in Ankara Photo: ADEM ALTAN/AFP
Downing Street is to order a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and a network of Islamist groups accused of fuelling extremism in Britain and across the Arab world.
David Cameron launched an inquiry into the Brotherhood earlier this year, prompted by concerns it was stoking an Islamist ideology that had encouraged British jihadists to fight in Syria and Iraq.
Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who is an adviser to the review, is reported to have described it as “at heart a terrorist organisation”. The Brotherhood insists it is non-violent and seeks to impose Islamic rule only through democratic change. It has condemned Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and al-Qaeda.
A senior source close to the inquiry said its report – compiled but not yet published – had identified “an incredibly complex web” of up to 60 organisations in Britain, including charities, think tanks and even television channels, with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, which will all now come under scrutiny.
The inquiry, aided by the security services, has also investigated its network abroad. One expert said that the Brotherhood was now operating from three major bases – London, Istanbul and Doha, the capital of Qatar.
Qatar, the wealthiest country in the world per head of population, has for 30 years been home to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric in exile, often described as the Brotherhood’s spiritual leader. Qaradawi, who was banned from entering Britain in 2008, is accused of anti-Semitism, supporting Palestinian suicide bombers, condoning wife- beating and punishing homosexuals.
Qatar has found itself isolated from its Gulf neighbours – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – over its support of the Brotherhood during the Arab Spring. Qatar also funds Hamas, which was originally established as a Palestinian branch of the Egyptian Brotherhood and whose military wing is banned as a terrorist organisation by Britain, among others.
Dr Lorenzo Vidino, who is understood to have worked on the Cabinet Office report, presided over by Sir John Jenkins, Britain’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said: “It is clear that the Brotherhood has many dark spots, ranging from its ambiguous relationship with violence to its questionable impact on social cohesion in Britain.”
The Government crackdown will stop short of outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood but action is expected to include:
Þ Investigations into charities that are effectively “fronts” for the Brotherhood;
Þ Inquiries into funding of the organisation and links to jihadi groups abroad;
Þ Banning clerics linked to the group from countries such as Qatar and Turkey from coming to Britain for rallies and conferences.
The source said: “We cannot ban the organisation, but that was never the intention of the review. We can go after single individuals, not for terrorist-related activity, but through the Al Capone method of law-enforcement. We cannot get them for terrorism but I bet you they don’t pay their taxes.
“One of the big things is piling pressure on the charitable missions. Until now it has been very hard to monitor all the groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
It is understood the Government will also use powers already available to Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to bar radicals linked to the Brotherhood. Visiting clerics from Turkey and Qatar are of special interest.
A Cabinet Office source said of the review: “The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a non-British citizen from the UK where she considers that the individual’s presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. The Home Secretary will use these powers when justified and based on all available evidence.
“Given the concerns now being expressed about the group and its alleged links to extremism and violence, it’s absolutely right and prudent that we have a more thorough understanding of the group and its impact on both on our national security and on our interest in stability and prosperity in the Middle East.”
Dr Vidino, an academic who has written a book about the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, has identified a number of groups linked to the organisation, including the Muslim Association of Britain and the Cordoba Foundation, both of which had their bank accounts closed down by HSBC in the summer. Mr Cameron, while in opposition, accused the Cordoba Foundation, run by Anas Altikriti, of being a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.
A number of individuals – including Mr Altikriti and other supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, as well as their families – also had their HSBC accounts shut down. The bank said it was “applying a programme of strategic assessments to all of its businesses” after a £1.2 billion fine in 2012 over poor money-laundering controls, but offered no further explanation for its actions.
The origin of funding of the Brotherhood-linked groups in the UK will come under scrutiny in the Cabinet Office report. Qatar has been the Brotherhood’s major funder, bankrolling the party in Egypt, where it gained power in democratic elections before a bloody military coup.
Qatar has also bankrolled Hamas, as well as the Brotherhood in Libya, where it has been accused of joining forces with jihadist militias intent on overthrowing the secular, elected government in Tripoli. Qatar has also funded high- profile events in Britain, apparently linked to the Brotherhood.
A spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, which has about 1,000 members, said it had co-operated with the government review. It said it was a separate entity but added: “MAB wishes to reiterate that we share the main principles with the Muslim Brotherhood, including its commitment to uphold democracy, freedom of the individual, social justice and the creation of a civil society.
“MAB confirms that we believe the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood is neither extreme nor has it ever endorsed the use of violence. MAB rejects calls for the organisation to be proscribed.”
Mr Altikriti accused Mr Cameron of making false claims about the Cordoba Foundation under the protection of parliamentary privilege. He said his foundation was an independent think tank, and that HSBC had offered no explanation for why his bank account had been shut down.
Mr Altikriti was given security clearance as recently as February to meet President Barack Obama in the White House as part of an Iraqi delegation.
Toby Cadman, his lawyer, said the review was flawed from the beginning. He said there was a perception of bias because as ambassador to Saudi Arabia, which has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood and which has fallen out with Qatar over the Islamist organisation, Sir John was not the right choice to oversee it.
Mr Cadman said Sir Richard Dearlove’s statement that the Muslim Brotherhood was “at heart a terrorist organisation” gave a clear implication of preconceived ideas. “There is absolutely no suggestion that Sir Richard would act improperly, but the appearance of impropriety is what matters,” he said.
Sir John’s review was completed in July but has not yet been published. It has been claimed that it was delayed because it stopped short of recommending the Brotherhood be outlawed.
The Government denies this but the failure to proscribe it is said to have angered Saudi Arabia.

Monday, January 12, 2015

Muslim scholar Chandra Muzaffar says Charlie Hebdo is an issue that affects all Muslims,,and it is for the West to start making amends,and to accommodate the Muslim worldview

Paris: A Dastardly Act Of Terror
By Chandra Muzaffar
09 January, 2015
It is not surprising that Muslim governments, organizations and individuals right across the globe have condemned the heinous murder of 12 persons --- 10 journalists and two police --- at the headquarters of the satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, in Paris in the late morning of the 7th of January 2015. This dastardly act of terror, allegedly carried out by three Muslims, violates every norm in the Islamic faith.
If it is true that the killers were trying to avenge the sanctified memory of the Prophet Muhammad who has been the subject of continuous ridicule and contempt in the weekly, murdering its cartoonists and editors is clearly an abomination. One should respond to satirical cartoons with cartoons and other works of art that expose the prejudice and bigotry of the cartoonists and editors of Charlie Hebdo. One should use the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as a platform to educate and raise the awareness of the French public about what the Quran actually teaches and who the Prophet really was and the sort of noble values that distinguished his life and struggle. To assassinate those who mock the Prophet in such a barbaric manner shows that the terrorists have no understanding at all of how the Prophet himself responded to those who poured their venom and hatred upon him when he was conveying the message of justice and compassion that is the kernel of Islam to the people of Mecca and Medina in the early 7th century.
Of course, provoking the six million Muslims in France and the larger 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide through constant insults and indignities directed at the Prophet and the religion --- albeit through the medium of cartoons --- isnot only utterly reprehensible but also an affront to inter-religious harmony and social stability. It is an example of the reckless abuse of the freedom of expression which brings much grief to everyone. Freedom of expression is not the freedom to denigrate and desecrate a Prophet who is so deeply cherished by millions and millions of Muslims. If the advocates of human rights regard the freedom of a handful of cartoonists as crucial for human civilization, they should also show some appreciation of the honor and dignity of an entire people. Surely, the right to protect one’s dignity --- the dignity of a collectivity --- is also a fundamental human right.
The Charlie Hebdo episode has underscored yet again the importance of exercising freedom with a deep sense of responsibility. Restraints are part and parcel of rights. It is by balancing rights with restraints that one ensures the well-being of the whole.
This balance is especially critical at a time like this in Europe. Negative feelings towards non-European migrants are getting stronger in various parts of the continent. Islamophobia is part of this though as a phenomenon it is centuries old. If attitudes towards Muslims and migrants in general have hardened in recent years, it is partly because of rising unemployment and stagnating economies. As it often happens in such situations, the “outsider” becomes the scapegoat.
If in the midst of all this, elements from the majority, established community in Europe continue to provoke a minority which by and large views religion from a different perspective than the majority, and if some individuals from that minority react to the provocations through mindless violence, tension and conflict will become the order of the day. This is why both sides should be responsible and restrained.
Indeed, both the majority and the minority should realize that acts of terror can also be manipulated to serve the agenda of some political actor or other. In the context of Charlie Hebdo, shouldn’t we ask if the killing spree on the 7th of January was also a message of sorts to the French ruling elite? Was some group sending a warning to the elite that it should not have supported Palestine’s recent failed bid in the UN Security Council to obtain endorsement for its goal of establishing an independent, sovereign state within a short time frame?Was that group the master-mind behind 7th January?
Questions of this sort strengthen the case for an independent investigation preferably under the aegis of the UN Secretary-General into the Paris massacre. The truth behind the massacre may tell us a great deal about terrorism itself in our time.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).
9 January 2015.

Friday, January 9, 2015

Sydney Morning Herald-A Third World mentality hiding behind a First World facade

This confirms what I realized a long time ago,when I arrived in Australia.That for all their First World pretensions,Australian newspaper editors, particularly those at Fairfax, the ABC and SBS; are often no more, if not  less sophisticated than their East and South East Asian counterparts. This admission for Judith Whelan:
The Sydney Morning Herald's news director, Judith Whelan, said she had decided not to run any of the cartoons depicting the Prophet, not for fear for the safety of staff but because it would offend a segment of the paper's readership. "I defend Charlie Hebdo's right to publish the cartoons, that does not mean we have to," she said. 
Is clearly at odds with the declarations of press freedom  made in  this editorial:
A comparison with South Asian editors would be unfair.There ,Australian editors cannot even claim superiority in the use of the  English language. 

Search smh:

Search in:

Charlie Hebdo cartoons: media around the world chart different courses

Reading the latest issue of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
Reading the latest issue of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Photo: AFP
Washington: As Charlie Hebdo's journalists and the police who tried to protect them lay dead in Paris, editors around the world were suddenly confronted with a grave decision.
Should they mark their solidarity with their colleagues – and their fidelity to freedom of expression – by publishing the cartoons the assailants claim had provoked them? Should they instead consider the concern of offending their own readers and even the safety of their staff?
Different outlets charted different courses.
Some, such as the UK's Telegraph and the New York Post, published photos of Charlie Hebdo's editor Stephane Charbonnier holding one of the offending front-page cartoons, but either cropped the photo or blurred part of the image.
The Associated Press distributed no images that included the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, in keeping with its longstanding policy on offensive images.
"We've taken the view that we don't want to publish hate speech or spectacles that offend, provoke or intimidate, or anything that desecrates religious symbols or angers people along religious or ethnic lines", said Santiago Lyon, a vice president of the AP and its director of photography, the Washington Post reported. "We don't feel that's useful."
He said it was not a capitulation to terrorist threats, but a policy covering all creeds and situations.
Later in the day it appeared the AP had also removed from distribution images of the controversial Andres Serrano artwork Piss Christ, after the conservative newspaper The Washington Examiner questioned the apparent double standard.
The Washington Post quoted its own executive editor, Martin Baron, as saying the Post avoids publication of material "that is pointedly, deliberately, or needlessly offensive to members of religious groups" and would continue to apply those principles in the wake of the Paris atrocity.
But the Post's editorial page, which operates with independent editorial management, decided to publish one of the cartoons in Thursday's editions.
It has selected the front page published before Charlie Hebdowas firebombed in 2011, which declared the following week's edition would be guest-edited by the Prophet Muhammad, who was depicted, with the slogan "100 Lashes If You Don't Die Laughing".
"I think seeing the cover will help readers understand what this is all about", said Fred Hiatt, The Post's editorial editor.
The Sydney Morning Herald's news director, Judith Whelan, said she had decided not to run any of the cartoons depicting the Prophet, not for fear for the safety of staff but because it would offend a segment of the paper's readership.
"I defend Charlie Hebdo's right to publish the cartoons, that does not mean we have to," she said. 
On Fox News commentators appeared throughout the day criticising censorship and self-censorship, though Fox aired none of the images.
In fact none of the major American networks or cable channels were showing images of the cartoons in their coverage through the day after the shootings.
An NBC News spokesperson told Buzzfeed,  "Our NBC News Group Standards team has sent guidance to NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC not to show headlines or cartoons that could be viewed as insensitive or offensive".
A CNN memo obtained by Politico said,  "Although we are not at this time showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet considered offensive by many Muslims, platforms are encouraged to verbally describe the cartoons in detail". It stated that photos of the cartoons held by demonstrators during protesters are "OK, if shot wide".
On social media many people shared the images as an act of defiance.
Buzzfeed and the Huffington Post published some of the offending cartoons, with the latter headlining its compilation of seven caricatures of  Muhammad, "These Are the Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over". 
In the last of them  Muhammad is depicted kneeling in the sand before a masked terrorist about to behead him with a knife under the heading "If the Prophet was resurrected".
Muhammad is saying to the terrorist, "I am the Prophet, fool!". He replies, "Shut up, infidel".

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Australia can secure journalist Peter Greste's freedom by not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood


Australia can secure journalist Peter Greste's freedom by not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood

by Ganesh Sahathevan
The Australian Government is reported to be in negotiations with the Egyptian Government to secure the release of one of it's citizens, the Al-Jazeera journalist Peter Greste.Greste  and two other Al-Jazeera employees are  accused of assisting the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Australian Government has made a number of high level ministerial representations in his favour,but to no avail. Meanwhile, Australia contonues to provide polticial asylum to members of the Brotherhood, and in doing so a base for operations( see notes below). 
In addition Australia has done nothing to stop  Human Appeal International from using  Australia as one of its main bases for sourcing funds, despite the not unfounded  concern that it finances terrorists and evidence of HAI breaching Australian laws.
The solution  to the problem of Peter Greste seems straightforward:Australia can and should offer to cut the Brotherhood's Australian supports.Indeed, that request was recently conveyed, but obviously ignored.

The following is a collection of cases that were heard by Australia's Refugee Review Tribunal,and higher courts , where the applicants sought protection on the grounds of persecution because of political beliefs; in these cases evidenced by their membership of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In all these cases ,where the appeals have been successful, the decision was based on findings of whether the applicants had successfully proven membership of the Muslim Brotherhood.
 These cases must be read in full,but  I have provided some excerpts in order  to summarise the issue.I have also provided two Australian  newspaper reports where concerns were raised about the issue.
There are other cases  where the appeal failed because the applicant could not prove membership of the Muslim Brotherhood to the satisfaction of the tribunal or court.
The Cases
RRT Reference: N01/38786
Date decision made: 31 July 2002
....the Applicant claims that he has suffered and fears persecution in Syria because of political views which will be imputed to him because he has previously served several years imprisonment for being involved with the Muslim Brotherhood.

  1. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention.
RRT Reference: N95/09809-June 1996

This matter concerns a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (the Minister), in effect, to refuse to grant the Applicant a protection visa, as provided for under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The Applicant was represented by a solicitor from Legal Aid.

In 1984 the Applicant joined the Muslim Brotherhood >> in Hyderabad. He said this was only possible by invitation from existing members. He had become significantly involved through his activities in the Muslim Student Union
Decision: The Tribunal remits the application for consideration in accordance with the direction that the Applicant must be taken to have satisfied the criterion that he is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention
M196 of 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR[2005] FMCA 1650
MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – protection visa – confusion regarding meaning of 'jihad' and political group 'al Jihad' – whether denial of procedural fairness – reliance of textbook extract not put to applicant – whether jurisdictional error – whether breach of s.424 of Migration Act.
.The applicant before this court relies upon an application filed 1 September 2004 seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 3 July 2001. In its decision the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the first respondent's delegate to refuse to grant to the applicant a protection visa.

.The applicant is a citizen of Egypt who arrived in Australia on 7 March 2000. He travelled on an Egyptian passport issued in Kiev on 14 September 1999 and valid to 13 September 2006. When he arrived in Australia on 7 March 2000 he was the holder of a tourist short stay visa. Before he arrived in Australia the applicant has resided in the Ukraine for over five years.
6.On 20 March 2000 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa, and on 8 May 2000 a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the visa. The applicant then applied for review of that decision to the Tribunal on 1 June 2000.

"5. I have known the << Muslim Brotherhood >> for as long as I can remember. In around 1990, while I was still doing my national services, I was approached through men I knew from the mosque to become involved in the <<Muslim Brotherhood >>. I was invited to join the prayer groups and meetings. At this stage Islamic movements in Egypt were on the rise and I had friends who were joining << Muslim >> << Brotherhood >> and other organisations.
6. I was interested in the << Muslim Brotherhood >> because of my commitment to the Muslim faith. The mosque that I attended most was in (Y) although I also went to other mosques in surrounding towns. The <<Muslim Brotherhood >> was fairly strong in (Y).
7. Part of the reason that I was invited to join the <<Muslim Brotherhood >> was because I am a part of a big family in the (Y) area. I was asked to spread the <<Muslim Brotherhood >> message through my extended family.
8. I did not tell my immediate family about my involvement in the <<Muslim >> <<Brotherhood >>. I did not want them to know because I knew they would not approve as they knew the <<Muslim Brotherhood >> was an illegal organisation and that people were sometimes being arrested. The only one I told about my involvement in the <<Muslim Brotherhood >> until I was forced to leave was my younger brother, (M)." (Court book page 40)

RRT Reference: N96/12875 (10 November 1997)
Decision: The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention

The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness and accepts his claim that he was a member of the <<Muslim Brotherhood >>. The applicant appeared sincere in describing his belief in the Brotherhood's aims, and the applicant's witness was credible in describing how he had been satisfied that the applicant was a member of the << Muslim Brotherhood >> as he claimed. The Tribunal also accepts as factual the communication from the << Muslim Brotherhood >> attesting to the applicant's membership of the group. The signatory to that document is a member of a family with a very high profile in the Brotherhood. One of the Bayanuni family is currently the controller-general of the Brotherhood (see BBC Monitoring Service, above).

The applicant therefore has a well-founded fear of persecution by the Syrian authorities, because of his political opinion and religious beliefs as a member of the <<Muslim Brotherhood >>, if he returns to Syria.


The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2) of the Act for a protection visa.

Follower of radical Islamic movement granted asylum in Australia
Article from: Herald Sun
Padraic Murphy
August 27, 2009 12:00am
A FOLLOWER of a radical Islamic movement that seeks to introduce sharia law and has been linked to terrorist groups is being granted asylum in Australia.
The Refugee Review Tribunal has recommended a protection visa for an Egyptian man, who is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic political group with links to al-Qaida.
The Muslim Brotherhood has been outlawed in several countries, including Egypt.
It seeks to establish a pan-Islamic state ruled by sharia law and is committed to the destruction of Israel.
The Egyptian man initially was denied a protection visa by the Department of Immigration, but the decision was overturned by the tribunal.
"The tribunal is of the view that the applicant's decision to abandon ship, insistence on his rights not to return to Egypt for medical treatment, and behaviour towards his captain, if combined with his support for the Muslim Brotherhood, his low-level political activities and past expression of anti-government political views, would generate a profile that could attract the adverse attention of the authorities and focus their attention on his sympathies for the brotherhood," it found.
"On this basis, the tribunal is of the opinion that there is a real chance that this could place the applicant at risk of facing arrest, detention and ill-treatment."
Prof Greg Barton of Monash University said the Muslim Brotherhood had been linked to terrorist attacks, such as the Luxor bus bombing in 1997, but had since denounced violence, though many of its goals had been taken up by terrorist groups.
"Al-Qaida and other militant groups have benefited greatly from their ideas so it is true that the ideas produced by the brotherhood are taken further by more militant groups," he said.
"The brotherhood connection for anybody would automatically give Australian authorities a reason to check into their background."
Jeremy Jones, director of international affairs with the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council, said the brotherhood presented a threat to democratic countries.
"The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in many countries for good reason," he said. "It's not just it's attitude towards Israel that's of concern. It has strands that are very sympathetic towards terrorism."
Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone said she would write to Mr Evans asking to have the decision overturned.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the man would have a rigorous security check before a visa was granted.
"Should there be an adverse security assessment, the department cannot grant a visa," he said.

AUSTRALIA has granted asylum to Muslim Brotherhood members

From The Australian April 22, 2006 by Natalie O'Brien ...

AUSTRALIA has granted asylum to five men who claim their membership of an organisation accused of ties to al-Qa'ida would expose them to persecution in their home countries. The men from Syria, Egypt and India sought protection on the basis of their membership of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been banned in Syria and is considered the father of terrorist groups including al-Qa'ida.

Osama bin Laden's right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri adopted the organisation. And earlier this month, The Weekend Australian revealed that one of the five asylum-seekers, Ahmad al-Hamwi, who arrived in Australia 10 years ago, was a senior al-Qa'ida bagman linked to 1993 World Trade Centre bomber Ramzi Yousef.

US terror expert Steven Emerson said the practice of allowing Muslim Brotherhood members into Australia was "extremely dangerous". Mr Emerson, credited with being the first expert to warn about al-Qa'ida, said Britain had a similar policy to Australia, which had led to a "high concentration of radicals" and the establishment of extremist networks there.
"I am astounded at such a policy ... there is no doubt that there are ties between the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qa'ida," Mr Emerson said.

The five cases, which went before the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Magistrates Court between 1996 and 2002, revealed the applicants had sought protection on the grounds they were members or associates of the Brotherhood. Two men were given protection in 2002, after the September 11 attacks in the US. The Syrian arm of the Brotherhood has been linked to the al-Qa'ida members involved in planning the attacks.

In one case that went before the RRT, a Syrian revealed how he had been recruiting members to the Brotherhood without specifically mentioning the group. He said he tried to attract recruits by speaking about the aims of the group to overthrow the Syrian Government and usher in an Islamic society.

The former head of security with the French secret service, Alain Chouet, has this month written a briefing for the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Centre, warning that the Muslim Brotherhood should not be underestimated. "Like every fascist movement on the trail of power, the Brotherhood has achieved perfect fluency in doublespeak," Mr Chouet wrote.

Tzvi Fleischer, an analyst with the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council, said: "While only parts of the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorists, the rest are cheerleaders or apologists for terrorism."

But federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the Muslim Brotherhood was not a listed terrorist organisation in Australia or in any of its allied countries. "It would be a flawed view to assume a person was a security risk simply because they had a link to an organisation of this name," he said. Mr Ruddock said anyone wanting to come to Australia was checked by intelligence agencies but the Government would be concerned if any new information came to light linking them to terrorist organisations.

Mr al-Hamwi was, by his own admission to the RRT, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood

Posted by  on April 20, 2014 at 18:24 | Permalink