There was standing room only at the official opening of the Bozniak Islamic Centre on Saturday with official guests including Prof. Sifet Efendi Omerovic, Imam of the Bosniak Islamic Center, Sheikh Prof. Jasmin Bekric, chairman of the Mesihat Bosnian Islamic Council of Australia
H.E. Mr. Bakir Sadovic, Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Australia,  Mr. Avdo Vojic, President, Bosniak Islamic Society of Eight Mile Plains and His Eminence Husein ef. Kavazovic, Reisul-ulema Grand Mufti of the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The full programme included speeches by local and interstate politicians, a lunch to cater for all tastes and the cutting of the ribbon by the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina and community members Mirsad Duranovic and Abdul Omar to mark the official opening.

"The Bosnian community can be very proud of the professional and well-organized manner in which the ceremony was conducted and the Mosque that will become a landmark for community diversity and inclusion," one of the official guests told CCN.

In his address, prof. Sifet ef. Omerovic, the Imam of the Bozniak Islamic Centre said: It is important to note that our Islamic centre, apart from disseminating knowledge of Islam, will always try to bridge divides between peoples caused by ignorance and fear of other creeds, and will strive to advocate and expand much needed interfaith dialogue to strengthen community harmony and coexistence among various faiths and creeds which make our cosmopolitan city one of the most vibrant and tolerant places in the world. The full text of his speech is available here.

           Post your comment here

           Post your comment here

           Post your comment here

Norman Park resident Sally Rutter has been wearing a hijab for the past month using the hashtag #hijabexperiment to tell her story on social media. PICTURE: Richard Walker.

A NORMAN PARK woman who wore a hijab for the month of October says she had surprising results from the social experiment.

Nursing student Sally Rutter said she decided to wear the headscarf in support of the Islamic community after anti-terror raids swept the country last month.

The month quickly turned into a social experiment for the 32-year-old.

“I used to be an English teacher and I had dozens of Muslim students, they were lovely and I kept in touch with few of them,” Ms Rutter said.

“I was reading the newspaper and all this backlash from people that were ­saying really awful things about Muslims and it really upset me because I thought if you actually knew a Muslim you would not say such a thing.”

She said she thought it was going to be a hard month the first time she wore the headscarf.

“The only negative reaction was literally within five minutes of putting it on. I went to a bus stop and a woman refused to speak to me,” she said.

“She would not give me the time of day and was pretty rude.”

Despite this, she said her other interactions had been positive, including being asked out on a date.

“Some say nothing because I’m just a normal ­person with a hijab … some will speak Arabic to me … and I have to explain what I’m doing.”

Holland Park Mosque spokesman Ali Kadri welcomed the experiment.

“This is something like that we support and want to promote,” he said.

“We all know the success of this nation lies in social cohesion.”

Visit twitter.com/SallyRutter for more.
 

Source: Quest News

           Post your comment here

           Post your comment here

           Post your comment here

ANARCHIST 
 

Source: Courier Mail

           Post your comment here

           Post your comment here

Just Get On 

Unhealthy Political Conversation

Making enemies

           Post your comment here

The Federal Attorney General, Senator George Brandis fronted up to invited members of the Muslim Community on ABC TV Q&A program hosted by Tony Jones, aired live on Monday night 3 November from Bryan Brown Theatre located in the western Sydney suburb of Bankstown.
 

Unlike the usual Q&A episodes where several panellists sit on the stage, Senator Brandis was the sole panellist in this episode where Muslim academic, lawyers and community leaders as well as AFP Assistant Commissioner were relegated to sit with the audience.
 

Senator Brandis insisted that there was a problem within the Muslim community. “There is a problem, and the problem is that there are people, a small handful of very wicked people, who target young Muslim men and try to ensnare them into going to the Middle East and lead them on a path of self destruction”.
 

Dr Abdalla, an Imam and academic commented that radicalisation was not a Muslim problem, but a complex human problem and needed strategic solutions.
 

Regarding double standards on foreign fighters legislation, he asked “Will the new legislation apply to Australian citizens joining foreign armies? In particular will Jewish Australians who go overseas to fight with the Israeli Defence Forces be subjected to the same penalties as Muslim youth fighting in Syria or Iraq?”
 

Senator Brandis replied that if you are a dual citizen and join the army of your second citizenship, then you will not be prosecuted under this bill. When someone commented that what if it was the Russian army, then Senator Brandis added it has to be the army of a “friendly” country. Tony Jones asked if Russia was not a friendly country, but Senator Brandis skipped the question.
 

In trying to justify the Tony Abbott’s divisive term of “Team Australia” he said, “Team Australia, from the mouth of Tony Abbott is a word on inclusion. “It’s his favourite collective noun, to address the word as team, which is certainly what he meant in that press conference.” He simply received laughs from the audience on his comments.
 

In answer to Bilal Rauf, a lawyer, comments on the unprecedented Sydney raids, the Australian Federal Police assistance commissioner and national manager for counter terrorism Mr Gaughan “made no apologies” for the 800 police used in the raids on more than a dozen Sydney homes terrorising a large number of Muslim men, women and children very early in the morning for the sole purpose of finally arresting only one person. He confirmed a sword seized during the raids was a “legitimate weapon” and not plastic, as reported widely by the media.
 

On a question from Lydia Shelly, a lawyer regarding the need for legislation on metadata retention, Senator Brandis clarified that it will only be used to prosecute serious crimes such as terrorism, paedophilia and drug dealing and not for illegally downloading movies and songs by individuals.
 

Source: Australasian Muslim Times

QandA Bankstown with Attorney General Brandis by Silma Irham

Last night I was one of the few Muslims in Bankstown who attended the QandA session. It was boycotted by many of the Muslim community, led by a few agitators who had tried to convince the ABC QandA crew from changing the format of the show. I agreed with them, but always believe it is better to engage where engagement is offered, rather than simply boycott, and thereby have no engagement at all.
 

The format of the show particularly suited the Attorney General and his paternalistic manner. Seated alone on the dais, our active and senior members of the Muslim community were required to stand to ask questions or engage with the Attorney General. This meant that there was an immediate imbalance in the way that the show was conducted – the Muslim community and the ‘problem’ areas like Bankstown, were being ‘told’. In effect, Muslim community leaders were being humiliated – albeit at a low level - it clearly showed the AGs intolerance for mutual respect. This is something that continues to happen in all of the ‘negotiations’ that are being held around the country. They are an effort to show engagement but are in reality held to simply enforce the view that the government has.

From the Muslim community’s perspective the government’s view is that it knows what is good for us. It understands better than anyone what Australia represents, what its morals and attitudes should be, and will tolerate those with different attitudes and behavior to a limited extent. Step out of line and you will be hit with the legal hammer. The vast media presence and terrifying images of 800 policemen breaking down doors in the early morning, with helicopters drumming overhead, have filled the Australian wider community with fear. The most fearful are of course innocent Muslims who could be ‘dobbed’ in by a local teacher, and who are monitored day and night. Despite only two arrests, this pre-emptive strike, where one person who had been encouraged to mount ‘a’ terrorist attack was apparently caught, has been used to convince everyone not to stand in the way of the government. This was truly ‘shock and awe’.

In our ‘consultations’ with various government members (and so far the Premier’s meeting seems to have been the most productive) we are given the privilege of meeting with the PM, the AG and various other Ministers. But there is no wicket for us to throw our balls at, we speak to a wall of indifference where a small army of ministerial staff take notes but give no feedback, listen to our suggestions but discard them (all but a few token minor ones to show they are listening). They then lecture us about how we have responsibility for ‘our community’, but are also victims and need to be cared for by the government.

Brandis on QandA reminded me so much of being in the Principal's sights (even though I'm a former Principal lol!), and not a friendly one either. He sees his government as 'protecting' the community that community leaders are 'nurturing' that is being 'preyed upon' by 'very wicked' people. This is such a passive understanding of a very dynamic community. It completely ignores that there is growing anger about the government's policies overseas as well as the lack of resources to tackle employment and social issues in places like Bankstown. It especially ignores the complete freedom that exists to vilify Muslims and the lack of cultural competency exhibited by this government and most of its ministries.

Australia appears now to have the most draconian laws to protect against terror compared to its Allies. And yet there have been only 3 deaths to terrorism related events since the Hilton bombing in 1978, yet tens of people killed in low level gang related violence and thousands killed in domestic disputes. The government will argue that their very strong anti-terror policing has protected Australians. I would argue instead, that the risk of a terror attack is still incredibly low, compared to death by domestic abuse, neglect by government with asbestos, suicide from depression, but by highlighting the bogey man of the crazy terrorist (and who is more crazy than a religious fundamentalist who only thinks of ‘virgins in paradise’) the Government is able to severely limit civil liberties. It has obtained the right to proscribe organisations, places that people can visit, and spy to such a level that the data gathered can be edited in order to ensure a conviction. Any report on their actions can result in jail time for a journalist in this Orwellian society.

In this paternalistic society, Tony Abbott is a great mate and the Attorney General is a great father figure who decides who will leave this country, who will live in this country, who can come to the country and under what conditions they can live. The potential for these laws to abused is incredible, and as the genuinely independent media are shut down (QandA will be given its marching orders for sure in the near future) there will be more airtime for commercial entities encouraging us to relax, spoil ourselves and allow the wealthy to increase their share of the market, and their control of our lives. In the meantime, Muslims will have to toe the line, be interesting items to view in our enclaves and will be encouraged by all legitimate and funded means possible to keep our religion to ourselves while the Muslim world is gradually decimated to the benefit of the allies of Israel.

I did enjoy QandA last night, but perhaps came away a little pessimistic.
 

Source: Silma Ihram Blog

           Post your comment here

           Post your comment here

           Post your comment here

As one of the most popular writers in the country, Bolt reaches an unmatched audience. At a moment of heightened Islamophobia we would ill advised to leave his message go unchecked. Michael Brull explains.

As one of the most popular writers in the country, Bolt reaches an unmatched audience. At a moment of heightened Islamophobia we would be wrong to leave his message go unchecked. Michael Brull explains.

We need to talk about Andrew Bolt’s problem with Muslims.

Given his long history of inflammatory writings, it appears that many progressives just ignore the things he says. That is the most charitable way I can think of to describe the non-reaction to his latest ravings.

In a column last week for the Herald Sun, Bolt wrote about the National Mosque Open Day.

Most ordinary, decent people probably thought this was a nice thing. This was a step to try to reach Australians on a personal level and counter anti-Muslim prejudices.

The fact that Australians have widespread prejudice against Muslims has been repeatedly documented. For example, last week a survey showed that about a quarter of Australians hold negative or very negative views towards Muslims. In 2012, a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry found that anti-Muslim prejudice is, as reported in the Australian, “the biggest racism issue in Australia”. In 2011, another study found that almost half of Australians held negative views about Muslims.

This doesn’t seem to worry Bolt. In his column, he wondered if “Australian ignorance of Islam” was “the key problem”. He explained that 21 Muslims have been convicted of terrorist offences in Australia, and that the real step to progress would be “Muslim clerics [opening] a debate on reforming Islam so fewer followers believe it preaches that nonbelievers should submit — or risk death.”

He then wrote of the need to “stop the production of jihadists.” This means “reforming the creed they say licenses their violence”. Presumably, Bolt means the problem is Islam. If we change Islam, there will be less terrorism.

Equating Islam with jihadi terrorists means equating the beliefs of 1.5 billion people with terrorism. The fact that this is a comment about religion, rather than the religious believers themselves is a disingenuous distinction. The blood libels against Jews were also claims about the Jewish religion. Their effect was to stimulate anti-Jewish bigotry and hatred.

Bolt proceeds to claim that another way to stop the production of jihadists is through “preaching pride in this country”. This is presumably a reference to his view that criticising Australian foreign policy is dangerous: “people could die”.

Furthermore, we should slash “Muslim immigration” until they are better integrated. Fighting terrorism also “means ending the enclaves that inhibit integration. It is dangerous to have suburbs such as Lakemba in Sydney and Dallas in Melbourne where half the residents are Muslim.”

That’s right. Andrew Bolt said it is dangerous to have suburbs which have lots of Muslims in them.

I’ve been writing critically about Bolt’s comments on Muslims for years. Frankly, I don’t get it. How could Bolt be more blatantly hateful than warning that there are places in Australia that have lots of Muslims in them? How can it pass without notice when he says it is dangerous for a place to have too many Muslims in it? If a public commentator with a national platform warned about the dangers of having too many Jews in Wentworth, does anyone think that person would keep their job?

The Power Index lists Andrew Bolt as the most influential commentator in Australia, and describes him as “the nation’s best-read columnist”. They estimate that “over four million Australians pick up a paper featuring his column each week and more than a million actually read it”. His TV show brings in approximate 233 000 more viewers, and he appears regularly on radio too. Bolt reaches a lot of Australians. And his latest message to them is that a suburb being half-full of Muslims is dangerous.

The message that Muslims are dangerous has been spouted by other Australian commentators and politicians, and the effects are plain to see. Since the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, there has been a torrent of anti-Muslim attacks and abuse in Australia. For example, a man threatened to set a Muslim woman on fire. When she looked to another man for help, he called her a terrorist.

Another man entered a mosque and threatened to hit a woman with a chair. He also threw cement bags at the mosque. Another Muslim woman was physically attacked and called a “fucking terrorist”. Another Muslim woman was spat on. Another Muslim woman was attacked by a large man, who told her to “go back to where you came from.” His physical assault broke her arm.

One could go on. In this context, anti-Muslim bigotry is particularly sinister, and deserves to be taken more seriously, especially when it comes from figures with major public profiles.

A few weeks ago, Tony Abbott was discussing the problem of “hate preachers”. He said we “should have a system in place that red cards these hate preachers.”

I’m not entirely sure what a “red card” means in this context. If a red card means expulsion from Australia, I’m not in favour of that. But if we were to adopt the soccer metaphor, Tony Abbott doesn’t need any special powers to give a yellow card, or a (figurative) free kick. It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister of Australia can openly describe as a friend a man who thinks too many Muslims in an area is dangerous.

Tony Abbott is free to criticise Bolt’s comments on Muslims. If he stands by his friend, we’ll learn something new about how he feels about hate preaching. If no one else in Australia comments on the anti-Muslim writings of the “best-read columnist” in Australia, we’ll learn something new about the values of Australian public commentators.
 

Source: New Matilda

           Post your comment here

A QUEENSLAND dairy company has sparked a heated online debate after announcing on its Facebook page that it will not seek Halal certification for its products.

The posting by Maleny Dairies has triggered more than 24,000 Likes, with some praising the business and others accusing it of promoting xenophobia.

“We do not wish to increase the costs of our products to cover the expense of Halal certification. We prefer to make sure our local farmers receive a fair and sustainable price for their milk,’’ the post states.

Maleny Dairies owner Ross Hopper said he simply got tired of answering the same question about possible certification of products for Muslim customers.

“We’re not here to bash other people,’’ he said.

Supporters of the move thanked the business for “being true to Australia’’ and “loyal to our country’’.

But critics said the move could inflame ethnic tensions and was also absurd, since milk is already considered Halal, or allowed by Islamic culture.

“Well done Maleny for feeling the need to highlight this fact and create an outlet for the Islamophobes and the un-Australians to out themselves,’’ one woman posted.

Mr Hopper said he did not regret the posting but the decision had created more work for his business because a number of offensive comments had to be deleted.

Source: Courier Mail

           Post your comment here

He shocked the world by tweeting pictures of himself and his child holding the severed heads of people executed by Islamic State (IS). Khaled Sharrouf casts himself as a religious warrior fighting to create a caliphate in the Middle East.

But a close look at his life tells a more complex story of a young man with a history of drug taking, mental illness and violence. Overall one question recurs: is he a religious zealot or a criminal thug who used his muscle in the building industry?

"Khaled Sharrouf is not bad, he's mad. There's no less than five psychiatrists that I know who have diagnosed him with very significant mental health issues." - Sharrouf's former lawyer

This week, reporter Marian Wilkinson investigates the extraordinary life of Khaled Sharrouf, from petty criminal and underworld heavy to barbaric terrorist fighter.

"... He certainly appears to have become involved with some people who were involved in some pretty serious criminal activity and a couple of people in fact who were murdered, ultimately." - Police Officer

Sharrouf's notoriety began when he was arrested by police, charged and found guilty of a terrorism offence in 2005. Since then, he has recast himself as an enforcer for hire.

These days, former associates don't like to talk about their relationship with Sharrouf, but Four Corners has found evidence from various sources about the way he worked with figures in the building industry and how he came to the attention of law enforcement agents after an alleged extortion threat against one of Australia's most prominent construction companies.

It's clear that while Khaled Sharrouf may have had some powerful allies, he also made some dangerous enemies.

"I believe that Khaled Sharrouf was afraid for his life and that's what made him decide to leave Australia and use his brother's passport to escape, because he was concerned that he will be the next one to be shot." - Muslim Community Leader

One other question remains. How did someone with a criminal conviction, who was on a watch list and under investigation, get out of the country using his brother's passport?

Source: ABC

           Post your comment here

This week's CCN Reader's Recommendation is

Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence

by

 Karen Armstrong

In her new book, Fields of Blood, Karen Armstrong argues against the idea that faith fuels wars.

"Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses." This was how the historian Raymond of Aguilers described Jerusalem in 1099, as he watched Christian crusaders conquer the city. "Men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins," he observed. "Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers, since it had so long suffered from their blasphemies."

When people make generalized arguments about the inherent violence of religion, this is the kind of thing they're probably thinking of: the unapologetic, triumphalist bloodletting of the Crusades; the decades-long slaughter of the Thirty Years' War; and the dehumanizing murder sprees of contemporary jihad. And it is this kind of argument that motivated Karen Armstrong to write her newest book, aptly titled Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence,which was published last week in the United States.

The book tackles a simple question: Has religion been the cause of all the major wars in history? If you want to save yourself several hundred thousand words, the short answer is: no. Any student of history could point out that conflicts from the campaigns of Genghis Khan to World War I had non-religious motivations. During the talks she has already given about the book, Armstrong told me in an interview, the first person to ask her a question always says something along these lines: No one actually believes that religion is the cause of all major wars in history.

But then for the rest of the talk, Armstrong said, audience members "are insisting that [religion] is the chief cause that is to blame," Armstrong said. In her book, she writes that she has "heard this sentence recited like a mantra by American commentators and psychiatrists, London taxi drivers and Oxford academics." Religion may not have caused all the wars in history, these people say, but it is inherently violent in a way that has undeniably shaped world history for the worse. It's this ambient suspicion that Armstrong seems to be arguing against, rallying textual evidence from thousands of years before Christ through modernity.

Although the book is framed as a polemic response to what is essentially a straw-man question, Armstrong has isolated an interesting quality of contemporary discourse about religion: It's really, really vague. Contemplating whether violence is inherent in religion might seem like a pastime limited to college debating societies or educated retirees who have a lot of time for book talks (or dilettante journalists, for that matter), but this idea has an intangible and problematic power in Western culture—the focus of Armstrong's study. Even posing the question at the center of Armstrong's book assumes that there's a unified thing called "religion" that has stayed constant over thousands of years of human life.

But, as Armstrong points out in the book, "there is no universal way to define 'religion,'" particularly when it comes to comparing mono- and polytheistic faiths. "In the West we see 'religion' as a coherent system of obligatory beliefs, institutions, and rituals ... whose practice is essentially private and hermetically sealed off from all 'secular' activities," she writes. "But words in other languages that we translate as 'religion' almost invariably refer to something larger, vaguer, and more encompassing." This is an important premise of one of Armstrong's main arguments: It's impossible make a coherent case about the role of religion in warfare and violence throughout history and across the world, simply because religion plays very different roles in different cultures.

For example, religious belief and practice in, say, ancient Mesopotamia were very different than what they have become in modernity—a period that Armstrong and many academics say began in the West in 1648, when peace treaties ending several major wars in Europe were signed in Westphalia, a region in present-day Germany. She describes the spread of more secular governments in the West and the decline of religion as a primary organizing force in many people's lives during this period. Although "religious" violence has always had a political element, she argues, the political nature of warfare—even in wars with putatively religious justifications—has become even more pronounced in contemporary history.

The notion that "religion" is not a single belief, practice, or idea seems fairly obvious. But this claim is no less important for being self-evident. In the United States, debates about topics like birth control, abortion, and school prayer are often presented in the framework of a monolithic, uniform, publicly expressed "religion" in tension with a monolithic, uniform "secular culture," one that mostly considers faith to be private and personal. As Armstrong argues, throughout the contemporary Western world, this framework has had its most pernicious influence on perceptions of—and, perhaps, policies related to—global Islam and particularly the Middle East.

“I’ve found huge hostility in the United States among secular as well as religious people toward Islam, seeing it as a faith of violence—and that is true in the U.K., too," said Armstrong, who lives in England. But "the United States is very much entwined in the history of the Middle East, and similarly, we British are deeply entwined with these issues in what we used to call the developing world.”

This is what she asks of readers in her book: Look at history to understand the complex origins of the "religious violence" that shows up in the news every day. For example, "some Western analysts have argued that suicide killing is deeply embedded in the Islamic tradition," she writes. "But if that were so, why was 'revolutionary suicide' unknown in Sunni Islam before the late twentieth century? ... Why have both Hamas and Hizbollah abandoned it?"

Even though perpetrators of this kind of violence invoke Islam, their acts are mainly political, she writes:

What all suicide operations do have in common ... is a strategic goal: 'to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorist consider to be their homeland.'

This is not to deny that Hamas is as much a religious as a national movement, only that the fusion of the two is a modern innovation. The exalted love of the fatherland, which has no roots in Islamic culture, is now suffused with Muslim fervor.

All of Armstrong's arguments come back to the same basic point: It's impossible to explain contemporary or historical violence solely through religion. "Muslim fundamentalism ... has often—though again, not always—segued into physical aggression," she writes. "This is not because Islam is constitutionally more prone to violence than Protestant Christianity, but rather because Muslims had a much harsher introduction to modernity." (Here, she dates modernity to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during World War I.) In other words: Even religious history has to be read through the narrative lens of politics.

The point, once again, is fairly straightforward: Humans start wars and slaughter their enemies and blow themselves up for complicated reasons. For a book with such an abundance of historical facts and analysis, Fields of Bloodseems to be making a simple argument at an ambitiously macroscopic level—it's an inevitably overwhelming sprint through nearly 7,000 years of history.

But maybe that's the point: Humans talk in frameworks. People see the world through cultural associations and narratives of history, even if they're not apparent; that's why the attendees of Armstrong's book talks can intellectually understand that religion hasn't caused all the major wars in history while still almost subconsciously believing religion to be inherently violent. Fields of Bloodcan't debunk the rhetoric about religion that has built up over decades, but "the point is to sow a little seed of doubt, to muddy the waters," Armstrong told me. Perhaps that's all one book can hope to do.
 

Would you like to see the cover of your favourite book on our book shelves below?

Then simply email the title and author to thebookclub@crescentsofbrisbane.org

Double click a book cover to find out what others think of the book

 Post your comment here

Pasta Salad

During a recent talk at the Mosque the Imam, Mula Nasruddin, related the following account in praise of the president of the Mosque Society.

"There was a father who gave a $100 note to each of his three sons and told them to buy something that would completely fill up a room.

The first son bought a trolley-full of groceries for $100 - but couldn't fill the room completely.

The second son bought a load of meat for $100 – he also couldn't fill the room completely.

The third son was wise and bought a candle for $1 – he lit it up and the room was completely filled with light."

The Imam declared: "Our Society's president, Mr Jallalludin, is like the third son. From the day he has taken charge of his office, our Mosque is filled with the bright light of prosperity!"

After the thunderous applause died down, a voice from the congregation asked: "So, where is the remaining $99 ?"
 

 Post your comment here

Click on thumbnail to enlarge

Events and Functions

 Post your comment here

Islamic Programmes, Education & Services

 Post your comment here

Businesses and Services

DIRECTORY

PLEASE NOTE

1. All Islamic Event dates given above are tentative and subject to the sighting of the moon.

2. The Islamic date changes to the next day starting in the evenings after maghrib. Therefore, except for Lailatul Mehraj, Lailatul Bhahraat and Lailatul Qadr – these dates refer to the commencement of the event starting in the evening of the corresponding day.

 Post your comment here

 Post your comment her

Disclaimer

Articles and opinions appearing in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Crescents of Brisbane Team, CCN, its Editor or its Sponsors, particularly if they eventually turn out to be libellous, unfounded, objectionable, obnoxious, offensive, slanderous and/or downright distasteful.

It is the usual policy of CCN to include from time to time, notices of events that some readers may find interesting or relevant. Such notices are often posted as received. Including such messages or providing the details of such events does not necessarily imply endorsement of the contents of these events by either CCN or Crescents of Brisbane Inc.

Write For Us

The best ideas and the best feedback come from our community of readers. If you have a topic or opinion that you want to write about or want seen covered or any news item that you think might be of benefit to the Crescents Community please e-mail ccn@crescentsofbrisbane.org.

Share your thoughts, feelings and ambitions for our community through CCN.

If there is someone you know who would like to subscribe to CCN please encourage them to enter their details here.