Andrew TUrban
Look, it’s not fair to terrorists, whether Muslim or not. And have no fear, Australia’s Human Rights Commission is right onto it.
On October 21, the commission told a federal inquiry the definition of terrorism should no longer refer to attacks that have a religious motivation. The commission made its suggestion at an inquiry being conducted by the government’s Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Jake Bright, who is a former deputy inspector-general of intelligence and security. What would he know?
And here’s the shocking bit: when Bright’s researchers reviewed the outcomes in 83 terrorism cases, they found that 95 per cent involved religion as at least one of the motives. All those cases involving religiously motivated terrorism referred to Islam or the accused’s distorted interpretation of Islam. Such bias!
Leaders of the Islamic community are quite naturally distressed that the public image of their faith has been tarnished but they believe this is due to the law. Victoria’s Muslim Legal Network recognises that the terror laws do not explicitly equate Islam with religious motivations for terrorism, but it believes “the application on the ground has overwhelmingly targeted Muslims”. So much for tolerance …
The Islamic groups that took part in this inquiry are significant. They include the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and the Muslim Advocacy Network. They all want the terror laws changed. Obviously, duh!
And so does the Human Rights Commission. It believes removing the reference to religiously motivated attacks would not mean watering down the concept of terrorism. More duh!
The idea that this would not amount to watering down the terror laws is contested by the main victims of terror attacks, the Jewish community. Jillian Segal, the government’s special envoy on anti-Semitism made this clear. Yeah, she would say that.
The commission’s view on terror laws is at odds with those of the main counter-terrorism agencies – ASIO and the AFP. Let’s put that the right way round: it’s ASIO and the AFP whose views are at odds…
Bright’s report will go to the Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, whose own department is among those who believe religiously motivated attacks should continue to be defined as terrorism. So out of date!
“The definition applies equally to all religious causes, as it does to all political and ideological causes,” the Attorney-General’s Department said in its submission. A transparent attempt to gloss over the bias!
Andrew TUrban is a freelance agitator
(With apologies to Chris Merritt)