Australia had no anti-terrorism laws until 9/11, but since then we've
passed 61 pieces of legislation, and George Brandis wants to introduce
more. Do we need them?
Tony Abbott is desperate to go to war, but what are the
costs and what is he really signing the Australian people up for?
Veteran Australian diplomat Bruce Haigh says — a world of unintended consequences.
The so called Islamic State is a marauding force of Sunni
adherents with an ambitious and opportunistic agenda. It seeks to fill
the political and military vacuum brought about by the first American invasion of Iraq. Acquiring power behind the shield of religion is its modus operandi.
Commonsense and compassion dictates that the rampaging rebels must be halted and contained. They must be stopped from beheading western hostages, abducting and raping women and executing prisoners of war.
But who is it that should stop them?
On Monday 15 September, France hosted a one day meeting
in Paris of 30 countries, including the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council, major European states, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
the UAE and Iraq’s neighbours; Iraq did not attend and undertakings were
vague. Further meetings are planned.
Australia has made preparations to join military action, with the United States and just one other country, Denmark.
Britain and Canada are considering their options.
France has undertaken some air strikes in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the
UAE, Qatar and Bahrain have joined U.S. air strikes against targets in
Syria. Involvement of the Gulf States is likely to be limited and will
not extend to boots on the ground. None are likely to have been
enthusiastic volunteers.
This is not Australia’s fight.
Despite the recent outbreak of official hysteria, which might
incubate some home grown terror, Australia is not threatened in the way
Iraq and neighbouring states might feel threatened.
This is a fight for a broad coalition of Arab states. In the absence of this why should Australia step up?
No doubt the United States feels compelled to contain the damage from
past mistakes. The Chinese must be watching askance our rush to the
American cause.
Abbott is approaching military involvement as a religious crusade. He has said that anyone fighting for the rebels is against God and religion. He didn’t nominate which God and which religion.
The original Crusaders saw their missions as an act of love, righting the wrongs of Islamic occupation of the Holy Lands.
Abbott imbued with the history and heraldry of mother England and steeped in the tradition and atmosphere, if not the scholarship, of Oxford appears inspired by Shakespeare’s Henry V, during his invasion of France,
“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead!”
English is interchangeable with Australian as we are all subjects of the Crown.
Shakespeare’s jingoistic rallying cry ends with:
“The games afoot, Follow your spirit, and upon this charge, Cry ‘God for Henry, England and Saint George’!”
Words much beloved by school masters and boys of the Empire, which paraphrase Abbott’s televised exhortations.
As with American entry to the war in Vietnam, this current
undertaking is bereft of strategic thinking and planning. There is a
forward rush based on emotional footage and commentary.
Cool and calm heads are few and far between in the major Australian
political parties. There is a reluctance to debate the issues involved.
There is a sense that the Australian people are being railroaded — that
if the momentum for war was slowed and discussion took place, public
opinion might give the venture the thumbs down.
Abbott and his followers are banging an urgent military tattoo, in order to drown out dissent and numb clear thought.
In building the case for war in Vietnam, media outlets in 1963 were swamped with images of village headmen decapitated, hung and disembowelled by the Viet Cong. Emotion and fear was exploited.
The slogan of the time
was that it was better to fight Communism in Vietnam than at home.
Abbott’s better to fight the Jihadists in Iraq than Australia eerily
echoes the propaganda from that earlier ill-judged and failed war.
From 1962, when
there were 1,400 American advisers, until 1967 when there were 550,000
US led troops in Vietnam, it was downhill all the way.
A small group of Australian officers and warrant officers were sent to help train the Army of South Vietnam in 1962. In 1965 selective conscription was introduced and, by 1967, there were 8,300 Australian troops in Vietnam.
In all from 1962 to 1972, 60,000 Australians served in Vietnam, 521 died and 3,000 were injured.
Nothing was achieved.
Negotiations which might have taken place between the south and the
north in 1964 were sabotaged by the Americans in the interest of
defeating “Communism”.
For emotional, religious and ideological reasons, America fatally misread the political and social dynamics of Vietnam.
Yet here is Abbott, a latter day lap dog, swallowing every grim U.S.
‘intelligent report’ on IS and Iraq, not factoring in the earlier
failure of U.S. policy, which has led to the present imbroglio.
How exactly does Abbott believe the U.S. confrontation of IS will
proceed to a more successful outcome than Vietnam, the first and second
Iraq wars and Afghanistan?
U.S. foreign policy is flawed — it is directed by U.S. military
imperatives. The U.S. is a militarised democracy with a President
captive to the industrial/military complex.
Questions abound.
We have gone to war with the IS in conjunction with the Iraqi
military in order to support the government of Iraq, but what if the
government in Iraq collapses and/or the Iraqi military fades into the
desert?
Will the ‘Coalition’ continue the war? Will they take over the instruments of the failed Iraqi state?
If Vietnam is any guide, the answer is yes — and with predictable and catastrophic results.
What if IS should have further success, gaining more ground and
assets and, in the process, look and behave more like a functioning
state to the point that a number ‒ perhaps a majority of Arab countries ‒
give recognition and trade with the new entity or state?
What, then,. if Arab states desert the ‘Coalition’?
What if they turn against the ‘Coalition’ on the basis that it comprises interfering infidels?
What if the Taliban in Afghanistan use the ruggedness and remoteness of the country to train IS and other fighters?
Some say involvement with the IS could be a drawn out affair; it
could also come to range over a wide area. As such, it might start to
bleed U.S. military and financial power and influence.
Is Australia prepared to be similarly disadvantaged?
As the war drags on, or perhaps before even that situation is
reached, will the Abbott government introduce a war levy (tax) and
re-introduce selective conscription, for what is likely to become an
unpopular war?
To top off Abbott’s silly and alarming sabre rattling, we have heard
little from the immature government he leads regarding the far greater
threat to the world posed by the Ebola plague.
Bruce Haigh is a political commentator, conscript and retired diplomat, who served in the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
A 1350 lot subdivision is planned for land next to The Gap. Photo: Louie Douvis
A land owner sold a site slated for a new mega suburb for $70
million more than it was valued at earlier this year, after signing a
deal with Brisbane City Council.
The council signed an infrastructure agreement with Ian
Macallister, a long-time LNP donor, in February that paved the way for
him to sell 227 hectares of land bordering The Gap to West Australian
property developer Cedar Woods for $74 million in May.
Without the legally binding agreement, the Upper Kedron
property's unimproved capital value was just $2.5 million, according to
council calculations.
The document forms part of an assessment application made to
Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt by Cedar Woods, which has
proposed a high density, 1350 lot subdivision for the leafy site that
has been met with fierce opposition from neighbouring residents.
Advertisement
Lord Mayor Graham Quirk is on leave, so was unavailable for comment on Monday.
Acting Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner was also unavailable for comment.
Save the Gap president Shane Bevis said the document appeared
to confirm residents' fears that the development application was a done
deal, despite contravening the allowable density for the area in both
the new City Plan 2014 and the Ferny Grove Upper Kedron local plan.
He said no developer would outlay tens of millions of dollars for land without some guarantee their plans would be approved.
"This agreement appears to have been worth in the order of
$60 million, so this is no insignificant document council has entered
into with the original land owner," he said.
"What it looks like to us is council has been trying to hide
this document, to hide the existence of it, they have not discussed it
publicly.
"They have entered into a legally binding agreement that says
something completely different to what the City Plan says and how the
local plan says this land should be developed.
"It's time for council to come clean and start answering some
serious questions about how this agreement was entered into and on what
basis."
The infrastructure agreement is not available in publicly
accessible documentation relating to Cedar Woods' application on the
council's planning website, PD Online.
A council spokeswoman said the document did not guarantee
approval of Cedar Woods' development application but rather, was a bid
to protect the site's "significant ecological and waterway corridors".
The infrastructure agreement, which the council spokeswoman
said was binding on future development, irrespective of property owner,
was signed just 20 days after the council endorsed City Plan 2014, which
came into effect on July 1.
It appears to override planning instruments in both the City
Plan and the Upper Kedron Ferny Brook neighbourhood plan, both of which
were endorsed after extensive public consultation.
In both plans, the site is designated for low density future development and as environmentally sensitive.
"Everybody who believed the council and the Lord Mayor when
he said City Plan would protect our leafy suburbs, when this document
was created at the same time, it's a real kick in the guts," Mr Bevis
said.
"To those who thought they would have protection, the
residents of Upper Kedron who rightly have an expectation council would
stick to the local plan, it is just a real kick in the guts.
"This agreement runs counter to everything council endorsed just 20 days earlier."
A huge backlash from residents of The Gap and Upper Kedron
greeted the massive subdivision proposal, when it was submitted by Cedar
Woods in June.
The council spokeswoman said the site had been identified as a
location for future housing development under the South East Queensland
Regional Plan.
She said it was not uncommon for infrastructure agreements to precede a development application.
The council's opposition leader Milton Dick called for a
special council meeting to examine the emergence of the infrastructure
agreement.
"The Lord Mayor personally met with this developer on two
separate occasions, including the day the Infrastructure Agreement was
signed and it's been reported he has made supportive comments in a
statement calling for investors to the project," he said.
"We need to restore independent scrutiny to the assessment of
this development application and I call on the Lord Mayor to cut his
holiday short and immediately re-call councillors for a special meeting
of the Brisbane City Council."
The council is currently in its spring recess period.
Mr Macallister has donated on several occasions to the
Queensland LNP, as well as to the respective election funds of Cr Quirk
and former Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, Team Quirk Forward Brisbane
Leadership and Forward Brisbane Leadership.
URGENT PLEASE READ. OK I'm going to use the "F" word. This government has crossed the line into FASCISM. .
The Asylum Legacy Bill goes before the Senate Committee tomorrow. Please write to Senators opposing this Bill. The key problems with the proposed amendments include:
• Removal of references to the Refugee Convention from the Migration
Act. Removing reference to the Refugees Convention from the Migration
Act (the cornerstone of our immigration system) essentially allows the
Government to turn its back on its protection obligations. It is never
acceptable for a signatory nation to simply rewrite a human rights
treaty for its own purposes. • Suspension of the rules of natural
justice – removing the possibility of High Court challenges: the rule of
law and the judiciary is fundamental in our democracy, ensuring
fairness, justice and transparency in decision-making. • Provides an
explicit power exempting certain vessels involved in maritime
enforcement operations from the inappropriate application of the Marine
Safety National Law, the Navigation Act 2012 and the Shipping
Registration Act 1981. This removes all responsibility from those
charged with turning boats around at sea. It also means that actions
such as stripping life boats or floatation devices from boats may be
permitted, as well as removing supplies such as food, water or
petrol/diesel. • Changes that would allow boats carrying people
seeking asylum to be towed anywhere beyond Australian territories. This
includes the open sea, and leaving them there without regard for the
safety of their passengers. • Fast track assessment process with no
access to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and very limited review
processes. Fast turnaround processing was ruled illegal in the United
Kingdom in July 2014 as it carried an “unacceptable risk of unfairness”
(see http://www.righttoremain.org.uk/blog/detained-fast-track-asylum-system-ruled-unlawful-byhigh-court/.
• Children born to asylum seekers who arrived by boat will not be
eligible for any visa, but would be classified as “transitory persons”,
creating a new group of stateless persons. If these changes go ahead,
some babies born in this country will be subject to mandatory detention
and mandatory removal to Nauru as soon as possible. • Safe Haven
Enterprise Visas - temporary visas for 3 to 5 years which would not
provide permanent protection visas even for those people assessed to be
refugees. There is no justification for leaving people found to be
refugees in limbo, with no prospect of resettlement in Australia.
A GOLD Coast father has called for calm in the community after his son was targeted by a car load of teenagers who threatened to behead him on the street because he looked like a Muslim.
Police are investigating the
attack where the young man was allegedly threatened and abused at a set
of traffic lights at the intersection of Wardoo Street and Benowa Road
about 6.30pm on Thursday.
Craig Pollard says his son was bailed up by the group of teens who’d threatened to behead him simply because he had a beard.
“I am, to put it mildly, pissed off with some of the drop-kick idiots on the Gold Coast,” he said.
“My son was picking up my youngest
boy and was stopped at the lights when a bunch of (men) stopped beside
him in in their white p-plate Holden Commodore and started to abuse him
about being a Muslim.
“They threatened to cut off his head if they saw him on the street.”
Mr Pollard said his son told the
group he was not a Muslim, instead a kiwi with a beard, but they carried
on with the abuse, preaching “kiwis were next” before eventually taking
off.
It’s the latest in a spate of recent
offensives targeting Australia’s Islamic community in the wake of a
series of counter terrorism raids across Sydney and Brisbane, and
the shooting death of a teenage terror suspect outside a Melbourne
police station on Tuesday night.
“He has made an official complaint to the police about it, but is now afraid to drive his car,” Mr Pollard said.
“What is this place coming to if a young boy can’t feel safe on the Gold Coast while driving to pick up his brother.
“This is going to get worse, not
better. I can see the writing on the wall and feel sad for the majority
of the Gold Coast that will be caught up in the hate storm.”
The incident follows an attack on
an Islamic prayer centre on Brisbane’s south-side on Wednesday night,
where the words “Muslims are evil” and “die” where spray painted
across the buildings exterior.
“The perception may be in some
quarters that the Muslim community have some ties to the perpetrators of
some of these crimes,” Queensland Police Commissioner Ian Stewart told
ABC’s Lateline.
“They (extremists) are simply criminals who have no respect for any of us or for any particular religion or religious group.”
Last week Premier Campbell Newman
called for calm and understanding, warning police would be protecting
Queensland’s Muslim community against any backlash following the recent
terror-crackdown.
He said community hate directed at Muslim places of worship or schools would not be tolerated.
Yesterday Fairfax were made to look like a right bunch of bellends after
it turned out the “teenage terrorist” on the front page of several of
their major newspapers was just some kid at a party. Twitter jumped all
over it, naturally, because a newspaper getting something very important
very wrong is often quite funny, especially when they even screw up the
apology they make for the original screw-up by pairing it up with a picture of Jamie Durie for some reason.
The bollocking Fairfax is receiving is entirely justified — a young
guy has been branded a terrorist on the front pages of some of the
country’s largest newspapers because someone at the editorial desk can’t
tell brown people apart — but it’s also completely unsurprising given
that the last week or so has seen so much Muslim-bashing it’s almost
like we’re back in 2001 again. Or 2005.
Or 2006 — look, the point is, we’ve fallen back really, really hard
into our nasty old habit of treating Muslims — or anyone we think is a
Muslim — like the aliens in District 9.
Pictured: A Muslim, as is the Daily Telegraph‘s understanding.
The last week alone has seen almost too many instances of hatred and
violence towards Muslims to count, and they’re not just coming from some
fringe group. Senior Australian politicians, media outlets, police, the
general public — everyone’s jumping on the “gotta vilify dem Muslims”
bandwagon. Apologies for any that I’ve missed; I honestly don’t think I
could find them all in time to get this published.
–
Politicians
Let’s start with the politicians, because this is going to be an exercise in masochism anyway. Jacqui Lambie continued her run of being a stellar human being by sharing an image on Facebook of a woman in a burqa holding a gun that strongly implied the woman was a terrorist.
That woman, in fact, was Lieutenant-Colonel Malalai Kakar, Afghanistan’s
first female policewoman who was killed by the Taliban outside her home
in front of her young son; the image had been repurposed by the
far-right UK party Britain First. Cool. What a classy-as-heck
thing to do, use a picture of a dead lady who fought for her country and
paint her like the people who shot her. Nice one.
The original photographer called Lambie out not
only for disgracing Kakar’s memory, but for using the image to promote
the “ban the burqa” campaign; a movement recently given some
high-profile boosts from Lambie’s fellow Gronkimentarians (Adj., Aus.
En., “Parliamentarians who are gronks”) George Christensen and Cory Bernardi, both of whom want to Free Them Brown Womens by legislating what they can and cannot wear because that is how Freedom works.
On Tuesday, Christensen admitted his opposition to the burqa was
mostly because he feels it “instils fear” in people — because there
ain’t nothing scarier than a woman choosing to wear an article of her
faith, apparently. To be fair on him, Muslim women who wear the burqa in
this country do have a history of unnerving activities, including
“going to the shops”, “buying food” and “walking around”, which must be
quite alarming if you are a conservative politician, a small, fragile
bird, or a combination of the two.
Lambie also continued her Crusade against Sharia law, accusing those who practise it
of being “bullies and thugs who impose their culture on us” despite not
possessing the faintest, remotest, am-I-somewhere-in-the-ballpark
idea of what Sharia law actually is, as she revealed so sweetly on the ABC’s Insiders on Sunday.
It’s easy to dismiss Lambie as “that Tasmanian who asked for some sweet dick on the radio once”,
but she — along with Bernardi, Christensen and a whole whack of others —
are the people who Australia has gifted with the power to make laws.
Make. Laws. I wouldn’t trust Cory Bernardi to make a cheese sandwich
without slipping some creepy macho-religious crap into it, let alone a
bill in the friggin’ Senate, but it’s kind of difficult to dismiss his
views as “fringe” given he was literally the Liberal Party’s first choice to represent their values in the great state of South Australia at the last election.
If I were Muslim, I’d take a whole heap of confidence from a senior
figure in my country’s ruling party bringing up a piece of cloth worn by
some adherents of my faith in a discussion about terrorism raids for literally no reason at all.
Heaps.
–
The Media
Alright, I cut corners here a bit. I could have gone through
every news website and painstakingly found every article that drummed
up fear about Teh Muslimzz over the last week, but I just went and made a
fun collage instead. Spot the odd one out and you win a prize:
If you said “Hang on! One of those pictures isn’t a hateful,
fearmongering front page at all! That fourth one is a cat!”, then
you are correct!
Your prize is a one-way ticket to a country with a media that isn’t
run by fat rich old white men who are scared of things they make no
effort to understand. Please take me with you in your suitcase. Please.
I’ll be very good.
–
Just Everyone. Seriously, Just Everyone Everywhere.
There’s the Muslim guy who was detained by the cops for filming in the Melbourne CBD (read his account over the The Drum if you read nothing else; it’s mildly terrifying).
There’s the spat-upon mum, the kicked baby’s pram, the vandalised car and the pig’s head on a spike — the pig’s head on a spike — that have been reported in WA. There’s the rape and death threats being made against Muslim women, and the indifference it’s been met with.
At this point, who are we kidding when we tell ourselves Australia is
an equal society? Based on the last week alone, it’s obvious Muslim
Australians have a very different lived experience to Anglo Australians —
one in which they are perpetually regarded with suspicion and fear that
often escalates into outright hatred, abuse and violence, and in which
they are continually expected to justify their own existence. Catholics
don’t have to constantly reassure people that they aren’t child
molesters; young white guys don’t get checked for firearms by police
every time they’re around a school; but a Muslim? If a Muslim’s not
screaming #NotInMyName and constantly apologising
for the latest atrocity committed by a band of thugs half a world away,
we assume they’re complicit, if not an active participant.
And all the stuff you just read about? That happened over one week.
One week. Imagine living that. Imagine growing up with it. When a
ten-year-old kid feels he doesn’t belong in the society he’s grown up in
— to the point where he feels compelled to ring up a national radio
station and talk about it — maybe “radical Islam” isn’t our biggest
problem.
It’s about time we came out and said the blatantly, nauseatingly
obvious: Muslims get treated like garbage in Australia. Absolute
garbage. Instead of asking Muslims to “prove” their loyalty and give up
their religion, maybe we should be focusing on why that is, and what we
can do about it.
Feature image via Jamie Kennedy on a Flickr Creative Commons licence. Read
more at
http://junkee.com/heres-a-quick-recap-of-all-the-times-australia-treated-muslims-like-complete-garbage-this-week/42244#ZUjzR4XuVwotYexq.99
What
Sheehan, Devine and Bolt lack in knowledge about Australia's Muslim
community, they make up for in imagination, writes Michael Brull.
I have previously noted the sheer weakness of the government’s case for the war on Iraq
and possibly Syria. I was surprised that no coherent case has been made
for sending troops and aircraft to Iraq, and patiently waited for some
kind of substantive arguments to be made.
Now, I am starting to think this is no accident. I don’t think we
will ever hear a sober, extended argument about why Australia should
join the fighting against ISIS. The real case for war is being made
through innuendo, fear, and cheap sloganeering.
Think Tony Abbott saying ISIS is worse than the Nazis, or calling
them a death cult. Think George Brandis saying the threat we face is worse than the Cold War.
Think Defence Minister David Johnston saying “I don’t want to take the
risk”. There’s no real argument: ISIS is bad, we’re good. They’re out to
get us, you’re not safe.
However, the threat doesn’t seem to actually come from ISIS sending
its fighters to Australia. It appears to come from them encouraging or
inspiring Australian Muslims to engage in their own acts of violence.
The effect of over 800 police engaging in televised counter-terrorism
raids sends the message that this is very serious and alarming, and we
should all be concerned about the threat from Australian Muslims.
The fact that only one person was arrested – and later a teenager was
shot after allegedly stabbing police – might suggest that this threat
has been overstated. If the threat was so serious, why were 800 police
required for the raids, but only two police needed when dealing with a
teenager who may have been an aspiring terrorist?
The government agenda of highlighting the threat from Australian
Muslims has been eagerly followed by the media. Its front pages and
endless coverage of the supposedly vast and serious threat from
terrorists has presumably delighted ISIS, insofar as it portrays them as
a serious threat to our way of life. However, there have also been more
overt criticisms of Islam, by those portraying Muslims as terrorists.
The crudest version of attacking Muslims has been Jacqui Lambie. Appearing to know approximately nothing about Islam or Muslims, she claimed that “sharia law” involves terrorism, among a string of other ignorant claims.
As a general rule, anyone who talks about “sharia law” probably
doesn’t know what they are talking about. As a phrase, it is akin to
saying “ATM machine”.
Sharia is Islamic law. That is, Muslims interpret their religion as
guiding their behaviour in most, if not all aspects of their lives.
Different Muslims tend to follow different interpretations of what kind
of behaviour is prescribed by Islam. It is a very diverse religion,
which one would expect, given that it has 1.5 billion adherents.
Sharia is basically analogous to halacha: Judaism also has religious
law which theoretically governs how Jews are supposed to live their
lives and behave in general. Jews and Muslims do not necessarily adhere
to all of the religious teachings of the branches of their religion that
they belong to, in the same way that many Christians do not always live
up to all of the teachings of Jesus, or not all Catholics follow
everything the Pope says.
Yet whilst Lambie has expressed her prejudice towards Muslims in an
embarrassingly ignorant manner, this is not the only way to get the
public worried about Muslims. The breathless front page covers, and
extensive coverage within – devoid of insight, largely devoted to
uncritical repetition of the claims of people in authority – send the
message that there is a major terrorist threat we should all be
concerned about. The subtext is the threat that faces us is Muslim
terrorism.
The Fairfax media has not covered itself in glory. The Age and Sydney
Morning Herald both plastered across their front pages a picture of a
“teenage terrorist”.
He happened to be a completely unrelated man.
His father reported: “This morning he was crying… ‘With this now how
can I go out and face people?’” On Thursday, it took a team of four Age
reporters to write: “concerns of reprisal attacks against the Muslim
community were inflamed when Islamic Council of Victoria secretary
Ghaith Krayem refused to condemn the actions of the Endeavour Hills
teenager until a police investigation had been completed.”
That is: they thought a Muslim organisation waiting for a police
investigation before commenting on a teenager being shot to death raised
concerns of reprisal attacks. From whom?
Notice how such reporting legitimises as reasonable such “reprisal
attacks against the Muslim community” when Muslim organisations are
treacherous enough to wait for evidence before expressing opinions on
legal matters.
Clearly they have not yet gotten aboard team Australia with their
medieval beliefs in quaint and outdated doctrines like the rule of law
and empirical evidence.
As for columnists, Paul Sheehan has returned to his usual style. On Thursday, he wrote that “most of the hatred, thuggery and racism at Cronulla in December, 2005, came from Muslims.”
On Monday, his argument for worrying about Muslims was based on arithmetic:
“The Muslim world has about 1.5 billion adherents. If just one
hundredth of one per cent interpret the Koran as a command to perform
unforgiving jihad, then 150,000 people will engage in violent war. That
is what we are seeing. One per cent of one per cent. It is a statistic
we must not forget.”
Moving on to other Australian deep thinkers, we find Miranda Devine.
In September, she came up with the remarkable insight that “Every day
another Labor or Greens MP comes out with another kooky pronouncement
downplaying the barbarity of Islamic State and pretending that if we’re
all just nice to each other, and stop worshipping God, then terrorism
will disappear.” I’m sure there’s a factual basis for her claim that
they think we should stop worshipping God to abolish the threat of
terrorism.
In August,
Devine warned that we should not be “intimidated into ignoring the
contradictions and extreme violence at the foundation of Islam.” The
“extreme violence at the foundation of Islam”. Clearly, the problem is
Islam – yet unlike Lambie's, this claim has passed by largely unnoticed.
On another day, Devine also claimed
“It is not mythical bigots but leftist troublemakers who try to divide
Australians and sow distrust as they downplay the seriousness of the
terror threat and imagine grand conspiracies.” Imagine the depravity of
those dreaded leftist troublemakers who dare to sow distrust and divide
Australians at a time like this.
At such times, we expect the usual sensitivity from Andrew Bolt,
whose breach of the Racial Discrimination Act is probably the most
famous such breach in the history of the law.
Bolt has preached three major principles in relation to the threat of
Islamist terrorists, unconcerned by their apparent inconsistency.
Firstly, that Islam is the root cause of such terrorism, with the
related thesis that we should stop letting in Muslim immigrants.
Secondly, that there are no root causes for terrorism, they’re simply
the acts of depraved individuals, and anyone who claims there are root
causes is behaving sinisterly, if not treacherously. Thirdly, that those
who criticise Western foreign policy threaten to cause jihadi
terrorism.
So one day, Bolt asserts that
“one of the root causes of this extremism is Islam itself, preaching a
hatred of nonbelievers and the legitimacy of killing to defend the
faith.”
Another time, Bolt warned
about “Mass immigration from the Middle East”, because a dozen Iraqis
got into a fight. As is well known, white Australians would know better
than to engage in such group violence.
On Thursday, Bolt decided
to show his encyclopaedic knowledge of Islam, quoting the Qur’an
thusly: “as the Koran puts it: ‘Slay the idolaters wherever you find
them’ and ‘fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief) and
worship is for Allah alone.’”
Strangely, for Muslim leaders “the root cause of Islamic terrorism is never Islam and always the West”. Yet when the Grand Mufti of Australia condemned ISIS, Bolt complained that he didn’t do so in the right languages. We may presume that the point made by Bolt previously
still stands: “The time is fast approaching - or here already - when we
must conclude it is futile to keep urging Muslim leaders to make a
stand against jihadism. The truth may well be that that Islam - or these
leaders’ constituents - give them no freedom to condemn what threatens
the rest of us.”
That is, Islam is the cause of terrorism – if the problem isn’t the
Muslim population (“constituents”) itself. Which presumably means that
about 500,000 Muslims who presently live in Australia cannot be trusted,
when their religion supposedly causes terrorism, and commands them to
slaughter disbelievers. If Bolt were correct, it would be truly strange
how few of them have bothered to attack non-Muslims in Australia.
Does Western foreign policy play any role at all in causing Islamist terrorism? In response to such claims, Bolt declared:
“But shifting blame on to the police? On to Australia? The ICV has
betrayed us, like too many Islamic leaders before.” Clearly, it would be
foolish to trust these treacherous Muslim leaders. In early September, Bolt wrote:
“Blaming the West for jihadist terrorism is deceitful. Criticising the
West more than the terrorists is alarming. And the repeated warnings
that we must change our policies in the Middle East or face more
terrorism at home are deeply sinister.”
Sinister to suggest that the West should change its foreign policy in
order to lessen the risk of Islamist terrorism? Even if we just
consider the explicit threat made by ISIS to Australians,
it reads: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European –
especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a
Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war,
including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition
against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any
manner or way however it may be.”
Clearly, ISIS doesn’t like disbelievers, and hates French people. But
any literate person can see that they are targeting those waging war
against them. One can and should support the successful crushing of
ISIS, but that does not mean that the West should be responsible for
doing so. Given the barbaric record of ISIS, it should not be a surprise
that they would seek to resist those who attack them using whatever
means they have available.
Next, we get to the really incoherent part of Bolt’s case. On Q&A on Monday, one of the panellists was Randa Abdel-Fattah,
who spoke terrifically on the various issues under consideration,
urging us to pay attention to the role of Western foreign policy in
relation to the threat from Islamist terrorists.
Muslim extremists watching would feel more justified than ever in
their rage at the alleged crimes Australia and Israel commit against
Muslims. They would feel that Australia must change to accommodate them
... or else.
The ABC is out of control. And this kind of stuff actually puts us in more danger.
Now try to think about this logically. Either Muslims are angry about
Western foreign policy, or they aren’t. If the cause of terrorism is
Islam, why would Muslim extremists care if a Muslim went on ABC and
criticised Western foreign policy? And if Western foreign policy does
anger Muslims, would ISIS really be oblivious to criticisms of that
policy until a Muslim made those criticisms on Australian television?
Nevertheless, Bolt was incandescent. Forgetting that Western foreign
policy has no connection to Islamist terrorism, he wrote: “How can the
ABC board possibly justify this? This is not just biased, but
dangerously inflammatory… these incitements to dangerous and ill-founded
hatreds, resentments and paranoia”.
He further observed
that “peddling inflammatory conspiracy theories favoured by jihadists,
is actually putting lives at risk”. Er, I thought the jihadis hated us
for our freedom? Or because of Islam. Are jihadis concerned about things
like Western foreign policy and how Muslims are treated here?
He later made this into a column,
concluding “every jihadist would have thought their anger at this
wicked country was righteous. What is the ABC up to? This is no time to
vilify Australia. People could die.”
That’s right. Criticising Australian foreign policy could result in
dead Australians, so we shouldn’t criticise Australian foreign policy.
Which – we should be reminded, is not the root cause of jihadi
terrorism, except when Muslims publicly criticise our foreign policy,
which could cause jihadi terrorism.
Amazingly, there are Coalition MPs who agree with Bolt. Alex Hawke expressed outrage
at the views expressed on Q&A, with the support of that famous
advocate for freedom of speech – including for bigots – George Brandis.
Hawke wanted more “balanced” views from the Muslim community.
Meanwhile, Craig Kelly claimed that the critical comments made by the
two Muslim women on Q&A about the counter-terrorism raids would
“encourage the radicalisation of young people”, and be welcomed by a
“terrorist recruiter”.
I think all Australians should watch Randa Abdel-Fattah’s outstanding performance on Q&A and judge for themselves.
For those interested in listening to what Muslim leaders actually have to say, this statement was released by the Australian National Imams Council at the start of September. It observes that:
one of the main causative factors for local radicalisation in the
west has been the western governments' military involvement in the
Middle East. The support of unjust, dictatorial regimes as well as
unilateral military aggression based on duplicitous foreign policy
positions has only aggravated the state of global fear and violence.
If the Australian government is serious about reducing the terror
threat locally, then it must review its foreign policy decisions with
regard to this region.
Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East should find this
statement unsurprising – even banal. One suspects even Andrew Bolt
secretly understands this statement.
For those Australians who are genuinely concerned about the threat of
terrorism, it may be worth considering seriously whether or not our
foreign policy is as unjust as described. As crazy and sinister as it
might sound to some, now might be a good time for Australian foreign
policy to start embracing such exotic concepts as human rights.
The last week alone has seen almost too many instances of hatred and 
Print