Muslim Political Party The Last Thing Australia Needs

IN A POKE in the eye to decency — and hot on the heels of the disgusting terrorist attack in Paris on Friday — news that Muslims have set up a political party in Australia is the last thing we need; parties predicated on any religion are abhorrent, but the idea of a Muslim bloc in Australian legislatures is an outrage. Signs of Islam’s utter incompatibility with liberal democracy are everywhere. This enterprise must be defeated at all costs.

I must apologise for my silence; some of the undertakings that have placed great demands on my time in the past few months are winding down after reaching something of a crescendo point recently, and as ever, the things that take precedence are those that pay the bills: hence my silence in this column at a terrible time in world events, although I have remained vocal — where possible — on Twitter throughout.

In any case, whilst there are still a couple of known time-intensive jobs headed my way in the next fortnight, readers should see a little more of me from now on.

At the outset, I have to say that what the world witnessed in Paris on Friday night (Melbourne time) was obscene, and for the second time this year the French have borne the despicable burden of showing the rest of the Western world exactly why Islam is utterly incompatible with liberal democratic society, and it is to be hoped that this time — finally — the cacophony of Chardonnay drunks, bullshit squirters and “compassion” babblers is once and for all drowned out by an avalanche of hard-nosed common sense, and the realisation that continuing down the bleating path of trendy socialists who think they’re agents of social Nirvana will lead only to disaster: and an awful lot of bloodshed and lost lives.

Regular readers will recall my piece when Islamic terrorists attacked the offices of French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo in Rheims in January; then, as now, I publish the same image, identically captioned and which is every bit as relevant today, and which has taken on far more sinister meaning in view of the recent events in Paris.

SAGE ADVICE…the culture of violent, radical Islam has no place in free societies.

We will return, e’er briefly, to Paris and the fallout from Friday’s events shortly, and whilst I am painfully aware I’ve missed a lot of the early discussion, there are some points I nonetheless wish to make this morning: unlike the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Paris attack isn’t going to disappear from daily discussion very quickly, and I do want to place a couple of pieces of coverage before readers for their consideration.

But before we do that, the news yesterday that Australia is to have its first Muslim-based party in time to contest next year’s federal election is about as appropriate and as welcome as the proverbial hole in the head; not content with timing the announcement of its arrival to coincide with the brutal slaughter of 130 innocent people in France, the “policy” unveiled to accompany the launch is to never support military action in a Muslim-majority country: or in other words, if the atrocities like Charlie Hebdo and Friday’s Paris massacre continue, and hypothetically are traced to state backing in the Middle East, this party would seek to ensure that no reprisals are ever meted out.

I don’t believe any political party based on religion is appropriate and, as one mischief-maker on Twitter suggested yesterday, that goes for the Christian Democrats as well (which in truth, is really an anti-abortion party in any case, and thus not necessarily the same thing despite its name).

But Rise Up! Australia, for example, with its hardline fundamentalist Christian ideas and the noxious, offensive outbursts of its founder Danny Nalliah — from whom the assertion that the devastating bushfires in Victoria in 2009 was God’s punishment for relatively liberal abortion laws in this state pretty much sums up what is wrong with both Nalliah and his odious party — is, on one level, every bit as bad as any mooted party of Islam. There are, of course, other non-Muslim religious fringe parties I could have equally cited by way of illustration.

But one thing all of them lacks, compared to a Muslim party, is a background theological code of murdering people in its name, and the idea a party underpinned by a religion — or totalitarian ideology, depending on your view — of subjugating women, raping and murdering women and children, slaughtering “infidels” (quite simply, non-Muslims) and bolstered by the newly announced policy of shielding Muslim states from military attack has no place in Australia, and is less welcome than even the repulsive Nalliah and his God-forsaken band of fanatics masquerading as candidates for elective office.

The proposed party (or at least, its central pledge to interfere in the management of external affairs) could well be unconstitutional.

And like any half-arsed, power-crazed electoral venture, the Australian Muslim Party promises only to contest Senate seats and upper house berths at state elections across the country: the same approach of any party that boasts little broad support, and which seeks to accrue disproportionate clout in order to wield disproportionate influence.

I have always said — and do so again, even after what happened in Paris — that what makes dealing with the issue of Islam and the Muslim community in Australia so difficult is that the majority of Muslims do, in fact, simply want to be left alone to live in peace, and don’t actually want to hurt anyone.

Yet by the same token, where Muslim immigration exists, so too does the risk of terrorist atrocities: and the end destination of this lies in the kind of outrage played out on the streets of Paris on Friday night.

Muslim reform activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali (to whom much attention should be paid, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike) published an excellent op-ed piece in The Australian yesterday, in which she bluntly acknowledged that fundamentalist jihadis have been at war with the West “for years,” and that the West must militarily destroy Islamic State and its so-called caliphate, whatever it takes.

She is also on record as describing Sharia law to be “as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism,” and that “Violence is inherent in Islam – it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder (sic).”

But even were Islamic State to be wiped out of its solidifying stronghold in Iraq and Syria, the problem of Islamic fanatics would go unresolved; the only surprise about what went on in Paris last week is that it didn’t occur in the Netherlands or Belgium first, for Muslim numbers in European countries have ballooned to the point that tension between those communities and the rest of the population is a constant. Boilovers — or worse, the profane and gratuitous violence perpetrated in the name of “religion” that occurred in Paris — are an incessant and wholly undesirable prospect.

It is not accurate and not good enough for Muslim leaders to simply eschew responsibility whenever their flock offend against the majority non-Muslim populations in countries where they have been made welcome; in my view, it is idiot-simple (and wrong) to blame Islamic terror now on former US President George W. Bush, or on the United States generally.

Certainly, the flawed military action in Iraq from 2003 onwards was based on false assumptions, and if a finger must be pointed anywhere it should be pointed in the direction of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose government was responsible for preparing the defective dossier of intelligence upon which the 2003 strikes were based.

Yet acts of Islamic terror were growing in number and force well before the US led Western forces back into Iraq in 2003; and in any case, deposed tyrant Saddam Hussein had spent years after the first Gulf War claiming he had complied with disarmament obligations imposed on him by the United Nations whenever a Western voice was listening, whilst simultaneously telling his regional neighbours that he retained biological and chemical warfare capability and wouldn’t hesitate to use it if provoked.

This game of brinkmanship was, of course, ultimately exposed as bluster. But whilst the effects of US action may have exacerbated the progressive emergence of Islamic terrorism, it is unfathomable and bereft of credibility to claim it was singularly responsible for it.

And as I mentioned earlier, even if you excise the problem (whoever you believe caused it) from the Middle East, it would simply germinate and fester in Europe and, increasingly, in other Western countries.

One of the big take-outs from events in Paris for me is the admission by French authorities that screening of immigrants to weed out potential terrorists and jihadis had been a failure: and no matter how much chest-thumping or how many claims to tough border control regimes are made in Canberra, or London, or across continental Europe or even in the United States, it defies belief that screening procedures in any Western country are imbued with sufficient rigour or efficacy to stop the importation of militant Islamic terror at the border.

And something that ought to horrify and alarm fair-minded Australians — even the bleating left-wing imbeciles who would simply run up a white flag in the name of “tolerance” when their beloved, unseeing diversity programs are concerned — is that fact that the most senior Muslim in this country, Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, not only failed to condemn the atrocities in Paris, but added insult to injury by claiming, in short, that the attacks were the fault of the West and, by implication, that our own government was complicit in them.

I’m not going to dissect everything the Grand Mufti had to say, but in terms of his shopping list of things that were responsible for the slaughter in Paris, rather than Muslim communities taking responsibility for the actions of their members:

  • “Racism” is a cowardly cop-out — this problem here is not race, but religion, and a theological construct that codifies and practices specific acts of violence against “infidels” and anyone else who dares defy the “sacred” book of Qur’an (and yes, I am well aware the Christian bible also spells out some pretty barbaric edicts, but the difference is that Islam continues to practice literal interpretations of its holy book, whereas Christianity doesn’t);
  • The Grand Mufti can hardly complain about “Islamophobia” when the litany of barbaric acts carried out against civilian populations in the name of “Allah Akbar” is growing: of course people are frightened, antagonised, and increasingly hostile to this so-called religion of violent slaughter and destruction;
  • Blaming the “curtailing of freedoms through securitisation” is hardly an astute pronouncement from a senior Muslim, when across the world radicalised Islamofascists have destroyed parts of cities, exploded commercial airliners, slaughtered innocents going about their business, beheaded private citizens in Western countries at random and for no particular reason other than religious hatred, and make little effort to hide their disinclination to integrate into the communities that have offered them a chance at a better life;
  • And just what “duplicitous foreign policies” the Grand Mufti is referring to is unclear, but in any case, the bottom line appears very simply to be that Islam — with values and laws and expansionist objectives that are utterly incompatible with Western democracy — refuses to play any genuinely meaningful role in western countries it is welcomed into, and that even when accommodated, it can’t be trusted not to bite the hand that feeds it.

These observations will be dismissed by the Left as the rantings of a bigot, a hate monger, or whatever other abuse it is flinging around the place this week, and I strenuously reject any such claim.

I don’t think anyone these days seriously looks at Jewish holocaust survivors, or Greeks or Italians, or people from Asia and India who have found new lives in Australia, and tries to make the claim with any credibility that they don’t want to be part of the Australian community. There will always be fringe wackos around who will try. But Australia’s immigration record is one to be proud of, and the tolerant society it has helped to create is rightly the envy of the rest of the world.

(I would add that the greatest moral hypocrites of our time at the ALP and the Communist Party Greens have amply demonstrated their hatred for Israel, but of course to them, that’s “different:” the hard cold fact is that Israel only responds aggressively when provoked, and surrounded by lawless thugs sworn to wipe it off the face of the Earth, it is no surprise such provocations are frequent. But to the compassion blurters of the Left, radical Islamic aggression = good whilst justified Israeli responses = bad. Such a position is baseless, unjustifiable, and tantamount to an endorsement of outright savagery in and of itself. But I digress).

Even so, the one group that simply refuses to become part of Australian life is the Muslim community: it wants Halal food served everywhere. It wants men and women segregated at swimming pools, sports facilities and other areas. It agitates for the introduction of Sharia law. It refuses to surrender known troublemakers in its ranks to law enforcement agencies. It apologises for terrorist atrocities and seeks to transfer blame for the acts of Islamic jihadists to the very societies that feel the full force of the obscenities they commit. How many Muslims are interested in serving in the Australian military and fighting for their (adopted) country? How many Muslims want to leave the country to fight in jihadi wars against Western interests (as much, admittedly, as against each other among warring Islamic factions)?

These people are happy to take with one hand what they are given by western democracies. It is highly debatable whether anything given back with the other is worth anything at all. Indeed, it seems all countries like Australia get in return for their “compassion” is a kick in the head.

Europe is a powderkeg; with immigration from Muslim countries in places like Belgium and the Netherlands (and France) many years ahead of Australia and involving exponentially more resettled people, the ignition point between the relentless advance of Islam and the fed-up, resentful and defiant incumbent populations has arguably been reached. Very soon, all hell may very well break loose. If and when it does, blaming Uncle Sam will be a facile fallacy indeed.

As night follows day — with the same defective controls on its borders and in screening out potential terrorists in particular, no matter how loudly Coalition politicians might protest — what is going on in Europe is what Australia has to look forward to if things are allowed to continue, unchecked, with the Muslim community insulated from reproach for the actions of its members and the Left cheering it along under the auspices of “social justice,” “humanitarian compassion,” and whatever other fatuous bullshit it churns out to justify undermining the integrity of Australian society.

It is not heartless to insist on the defence of our national way of life; it is not “racist” or prejudicial on religious grounds to point the finger at one group when the weight of evidence of its culpability — and complete incompatibility with Western values — is overwhelming.

I acknowledge how heavy-handed this might seem, especially given I am sincere in also acknowledging that the vast majority of Muslim people don’t want to hurt anyone.

But the first obligation of any government is to its own people — not to others elsewhere in the world, irrespective of the nobility and authenticity of the desire to help others.

Serious consideration must be given to a moratorium on Muslim immigration until or unless failsafe methods of excluding potential terrorists can be devised and implemented. If such an undertaking proves impossible to achieve, then Muslim immigration must end.

There’s nothing bigoted in this. France has shown us twice this year the dangers of unfettered open borders for people who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a decent and tolerant society. The same Left that preaches the need for understanding and acceptance remains mute in the wake of last week’s outrages against civilised decency, and just as unwilling as the Grand Mufti to acknowledge exactly who was at fault for killing and maiming hundreds. That, on its own, speaks volumes.

And it brings me back to the point at hand.

Perhaps a political party for Muslims is legal; perhaps it isn’t, but this is scarcely the point.

Enough acts of barbaric violence mark the course of Muslim settlement in free democratic societies to suggest to any reasonable person that not only is there a serious problem emanating from this particular group, but that the problem is growing — and quickly.

If there are constitutional grounds on which to disqualify and dissolve any Muslim political party, they should be seized upon and used: such a divisive, confrontational and downright inappropriate initiative must be responded to resolutely and with the full force of any law that might neutralise it deployed to that end.

A little foresight is all it takes to see the catastrophic end destination of a political party forged in a religion that claims to be a force of peace when so much of its recent history has left a trail of destruction, rape, murder and other barbarities.

And if forward thinking is beyond the capacity of those well placed to avert such an outcome, then a look instead in the rear view mirror will suffice: the most recent images that receptacle displays are of murdered and wounded civilians in Paris; plenty of comparable episodes are visible the further into the past one chooses to delve.

At the bottom line, Islam is utterly incompatible with the nature and spirit of liberal democracy. It is a poor joke of the most insidious variety that Australian Muslims now seek to attempt to use democracy as a vehicle for the advancement of their aims. Too much indulgence has been afforded to a group in Australian society that will never respond in like kind, and whose brethren elsewhere in the world trade only in slaughter and misery and destruction.

Enough is enough. If Australia, like the rest of the West, is to learn anything at all from the events last week in Paris, it must draw a line in the sand against the excesses of Islam. The time to do so now.

 

 

Parramatta: If You Want To “Kill Infidels,” You’re Not Welcome Here

IN THE FALLOUT from the execution-style murder of a Police IT worker by a 15-year-old Muslim youth, the ugly underside of religious hatred toward Australia by those who do not belong in this country has been writ large for all to see; this column does not sanction racism or religious persecution, but members of the Islamic community offering to “kill infidels” to avenge a religion-based murderer should either get out of Australia or be thrown out.

Like most Australians, I was sickened to learn of the execution-style shooting of NSW Police IT worker Curtis Cheng, who on the face of it was targeted for no other reason than his official involvement with a law enforcement agency in this country.

In the time I have been writing this column, I have posted on issues purely related to the Islamic community twice in almost 1,100 articles, and twice only: once when Muslim rioters went berserk in Sydney over an amateur film produced by an Egyptian Coptic Christian half a world away (violating parole conditions in the USA and eliciting international condemnation in the process) and once when Muslim “businessmen” sought to set up a walled Islamic community in Riverstone (also in Sydney, for those unaware).

The fact those articles remain the two most accessed posts in the history of The Red And The Blue — years after their publication — speaks volumes for what motivates a huge chunk of the population, and rather than initially being accessed from this site, the vast bulk of readers who clicked into them came from links that had been widely circulated in social media both in Australia and across the world.

Yet as much as I have sought to avoid issues that might inflame what I suspect may, in time, become a brutal conflict between the Muslim community and the Australian community at large, every so often something happens that is only possible to ignore by burying one’s head in the sand.

In other words, Australian Muslims cannot and must not expect decent people in this country to simply turn a blind eye to the outrages some in their midst perpetuate.

At the time of publication, the facts and circumstances surrounding the slaughter of an innocent going about his business remain unclear, and with investigations by Police and other law enforcement agencies in progress, I am hesitant to offer comment on what took place — although the established facts that Cheng was murdered by young Muslim Farhad Jabar, who subsequently opened fire on other Police and was himself shot dead on account of the clear risk he posed to Police and others nearby, are not in dispute — and I will aim to limit my references in relation to the incident itself to those facts.

Even so, the fallout emanating from sections of the Muslim community is deeply disturbing, with “supporters” of Jabar hitting social media to make a martyr of the young assassin, and making open threats (behind an assumed veil of social media anonymity) to kill Australians to “avenge” Jabar and to “fulfil Allah’s will.”

As far as I’m concerned, those who want to run around “killing infidels” and fulfilling any “law” in this country other than Australian law can get the hell out of here: and if they won’t go voluntarily, then the relevant Australian authorities must throw them out.

It is a fact that there are a good number of people in Islamic communities across Australia who simply want to live in peace, and not harm anyone; to suggest otherwise would be an irresponsible dishonesty that I encourage readers, in contemplating the increasing number of violent incidents involving Islamic aggression wrapped in anti-Australian, anti-Western rhetoric, not to succumb to.

But every time something like Friday’s shootings in Parramatta occurs — and the number of such incidents is beginning to increase, with recent examples of the Lindt cafe siege in Sydney and the attempted murder of two Police officers in Melbourne just a couple I could have cited — a pattern of denial, calls for tolerance, and anti-social belligerence rings out from other sections of those very same communities that is simply not possible to ignore.

A high-profile international example, of course, of what is becoming a growing international outrage transpired in France in January, when 12 staff from satire magazine Charlie Hebdo were gunned down in Rheims by three Islamic terrorists claiming to have acted “in the name of Allah:” and the same pattern was evident in that attack as well.

First, everyone connected with the Muslim community denies any involvement or knowledge of the atrocities that occurred and of those who committed them: and on this occasion, as The Australian is reporting, leaders of both the mainstream Muslim community and the radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir have disavowed any knowledge of either Jabar or of the action he intended to take prior to the event.

Second, the procession of prominent figures urging restraint — from reports Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull claimed that it was in fact Australians who were “inflammatory” toward Muslims rather than the other way around, to the usual treacherous, blind apologies for everyone and everything other than Australia and its interests from the ABC, the Fairfax press, and others of alleged standing in this country who seek at every available juncture to justify and explain away any atrocity committed against it.

(In case anyone thinks I’m picking on Malcolm, opposition “leader” Bill Shorten didn’t exactly cover himself in glory either, likening Islamic murderers and those who influence them to paedophiles — one of the “insults” against Allah that supposedly provided a trigger for the Muslim riots in Sydney three years ago).

And finally, the outrage of Muslims spews forth, the invective proclaiming (in infinitely varied forms of expression) that the criminal miscreant — who is Muslim — must be avenged, and that “infidels” opposed to Allah must die, replete with solemn undertakings to go ahead and enact just such a response.

Official investigations into Friday’s events will run their course, and it is to be hoped those charged with upholding the law — Australian law — will not shy from prosecuting anyone, irrespective of race or creed, found to have incited Jabar to kill or to have been in any way complicit in aiding and abetting his preparations to do so.

In the meantime, I want to draw readers’ attention to an article appearing in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph today, which shines a light on the third distasteful phase of the pattern to which I allude; for now — at least until there is more word from the investigations that are on foot — it is the repulsive mentality this showcases toward which I aim my remarks.

Very simply, Facebook pages and other social media instruments set up to glorify and eulogise bloody murderers are repugnant: there is no value in those who take innocent lives; and if you live in Australia, then nothing in the Qur’an can justify such bloodshed. (To my mind, it doesn’t justify it anywhere else, either).

Let’s be honest: this kid isn’t a hero, he isn’t a God, and he most certainly is not an individual to be celebrated: the fact that elements in the Muslim community seek to do so — be they “radicalised” or not — simply directs the contemptuous glare of reasonable individuals in the direction of their communities.

Yet one commenter on a Facebook tribute page set up in “honour” of Jabar described him as a “hero of the Islamic peoples (who) will be gratly missed (sic) whilst another claimed that in shooting and killing Cheng, Jabar had simply been “fulfilling Allah’s will.”

Another comment — apparently completely devoid of irony or context — stated of Jabar that “all he is guilty of was being Muslim” (sic).

Others railed against “the Police state of Australia” and declared “Inshallah…we will kill all the infidels.”

There is only one law in this country: Australian law.

Not Sharia law, or the “will of Allah,” or any other psuedo-sanctimonious bullshit: Australian law, and in coming to Australia in search of a better life and greater opportunities, those who arrive here are bound to respect, abide by and uphold Australian law as it applies.

It is a very sad fact that of all the people who have come to Australia — and remember, we all come from somewhere else originally, including the Aborigines, who arrived from Africa some 40,000 years ago — the only people who simply don’t seem to fit in here are Muslims: it is true that from time to time racial tensions have erupted around other ethnic groups, and irresponsible identities such as Pauline Hanson have apparently been more invested in inflaming those tensions by whipping up hysteria around the problems that existed rather than focusing on finding and helping to enact solutions to them.

Yet in the end — and in every case — those problems, one way or another, have been worked through.

Except this one.

If you look at those countries in Europe with the highest concentrations of Muslim residents — the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and increasingly Germany — each is fast becoming a powderkeg on account of the social and ideological incompatibility of Islamic doctrines with the concept of liberal democratic society that exists in the Western world.

The instances of violence, terrorism and other race and religion-related outrages perpetrated by members of Muslim communities here in Australia — irrespective of whether officially sanctioned by those communities, and irrespective of any atrocity “Allah” might command — have to date, thankfully, been isolated and directly affected just a handful of people, not that that in any way dishonours or diminishes the poor souls who have lost their lives as a result, or the loved ones who must live with the consequent loss.

But as I said earlier in this article, slowly — but surely — the incidents are also become more frequent and, I would add, bolder.

I must emphasise what I said at the outset: this latest instance of a deranged Islamic nutcase killing an innocent civilian must not be used to launch attacks on the Muslim community as a whole.

By the same token, however, the now-familiar pattern all over the Western world when something like this occurs — deny, deny and deny, followed by pleas for “tolerance” that provide cover for wild threats of murder and retribution from within the Muslim community over something its own member/s did — is something Muslim leaders must, must forever dispense with if they want the overwhelming majority of the Australian community to continue to show their people goodwill, understanding, the Australian welcome and (crucially) the benefit of the doubt when yet another of their number goes off slaughtering innocent people.

Left unchecked, Australia will find a very serious problem brewing in all of this: just as those countries in Europe are finding, as the numbers of Muslim residents in their midst reach the tipping point where injudicious expressions of “tolerance” have come very close indeed to igniting an all-out clash between the Muslim and non-Muslim contingents in those nations.

As a penultimate point, those Australian Muslims who find it outrageous that Australia is a party to efforts to smash the so-called Islamic State — a regime predicated on the rape and slaughter of anyone in its way, the pillaging and forced acquisition of lands, and the explicit objective to acquire nuclear weaponry with which to “attack the Great Satan” it sees in the USA — should be encouraged to leave Australia, and to never return.

Yet whichever way you cut it, what happened in Parramatta on Friday was a religiously motivated act of violence against a law-abiding, innocent citizen; it is unforgivable, and any suggestion to the contrary flies in the face of the values Australia stands for and the way of life, seemingly so attractive to Muslims prior to their arrival here, that some of them apparently want to destroy in the name of a God whose name carries no weight insofar as the laws of the land are concerned.

The idea that Jabar is in any way worthy of being “avenged” in light of what he did is offensive in the extreme; that he himself was killed is regrettable, but when confronted with an implacable and armed lunatic, the safety of Police is the greater concern.

To those who promise, in the names of Jabar and of Allah, to “kill infidels” — which means to slaughter yet more innocent Australians — our message is clear, and should be clearly and freely conveyed.

Not. Welcome. Here.

Fuck off, and go back to where you came from, if Australia is such a horrible place.

Be Alert: Christmas Terror Warning Is No Stunt

THE STILTED press conference given by Prime Minister Tony Abbott after a briefing from Australia’s intelligence agencies yesterday should be viewed with the utmost seriousness; the chance of a terrorist attack over Christmas may be remote, but the heightened activity among suspicious groups Abbott alluded to is no idle stunt. Coming in the wake of last week’s Sydney siege, a little vigilance is a small price to pay for an otherwise festive Christmas.

If there is one thing among many that the siege in Martin Place in Sydney last week showed, it’s that you can plan until you’re blue in the face: sometimes, things just happen.

In the same vein, I would hasten to add that the very best kind of terrorist attack is the one that doesn’t happen at all; quietly thwarted by those charged with keeping our country safe, there are plenty of known instances of Australia’s intelligence agencies foiling the handiwork of evil people in our midst who would wreak death and carnage on innocents.

It is also safe to assert that there are also plenty of such plots that are foiled without the public ever knowing of them.

The slightly surreal, generalised nature of the media conference given yesterday by Prime Minister Tony Abbott — reiterating Australia’s terror threat level as “high,” and detailing in vague terms a warning he had been briefed about of increased “chatter” between suspected terrorist groups under surveillance — elicited an immediate and predictable response, with social media briefly exploding with sarcastic comments that Abbott’s message was some kind of smokescreen: a ruse, a distraction, or simply a tactic to frighten people.

Just as quickly, the partisan barbs ceased.

The odd, stilted manner in which the Prime Minister spoke is understandable; the consensus that quickly emerged from observers and analysts alike was that far from any stunt, Abbott and his National Security Committee of Cabinet had been told something: and the competing imperatives of maintaining official secrecy, and appraising the public with adequate information to ensure the heightened need for caution was conveyed, meant this was not one of Abbott’s most fluent performances.

There seems to be some confusion about the nature of the threat yesterday’s briefing related to; some commentators (and their sources) have spoken of the potential for copycat attacks similar to the one that occurred in Sydney last week, whilst others have been resolute that so-called “lone ranger” attacks were not the concern of the brief, and that it instead pertained to threats posed by groups on a wider scale.

Either way, we are not talking about something that would be in any way desirable were it to come to pass.

I am very mindful that it is Christmas Eve; like millions of Australians, I’m spending today out and about, collecting the array of fine ingredients that I will tomorrow transform into a festive feast for family and friends that might otherwise befit a king. I’m self-trained to chef level, and cooking on this type of scale gives me a lot of pleasure: but it also necessitates my passage through a succession of popular and crowded public places.

And later, a trip to the local bottle shop for a bottle of nice red wine will precede my return to this column to talk about at least one more of the (unseasonal number of) political issues on foot at present: it’s been a busy time in politics and I suspect there won’t be a lot of down-time for those of us with our fingers on the pulse of what is going on over the Christmas period.

Mine is just one story among 24 million others in this country, and I relate it simply to illustrate how we, as Australians, would ordinarily go about our business at this time of year: and go about it we should, but with careful attention paid to anything or anyone that doesn’t really seem quite right.

Nobody wants to frighten Australians. Yet nobody wants to ignore or whitewash the risks to them, either.

Sydney’s Daily Telegraph best sums up the situation — and the modest demand it places on ordinary men and women — in its Editorial this morning, noting that whilst this will (understandably) be a tense Christmas, it can also be a completely safe one.

I hope and believe this is the case.

But I do urge readers, their families and their friends, as they go about their business today and over the next little while, to pay attention to anything untoward, to be alert, and to report anything that could be construed as sinister.

As last week’s events in Sydney showed, the public places we all go to for our own innocuous personal reasons are exactly the kind of places in which things can just happen.

If one atrocity could be thwarted by the vigilance and quick thinking of the Australian public, the work of our security services would be made that little bit easier — and that little bit more effective as well.

 

I will be back later today; barring anything unforeseen during the day there are at least two issues we should be talking further about in this column, and one of them will come in for some closer scrutiny before Christmas is upon us. In truth, I suspect there won’t be a shortage of material to canvass over the silly season, so stick with us during the break.

 

Sydney Siege: If Safe To Do So, Just Shoot The Bastard

AUSTRALIANS — and our friends across the world, especially those who have experienced the outrage of a terror incident — are entitled to feel violated this morning, as the country wakes to a second day of the Sydney siege; the professionalism of response personnel is laudable, yet the welfare of hostages must be weighed against the stability or otherwise of their captor. If the opportunity to do so presents, Police should just shoot the bastard.

There are some readers who will not approve of my advocacy of a summary end to the outrage being played out in Sydney today, as the siege in the Lindt cafe in Martin Place enters its second day.

But the outrage being played out involving an unquantified number of hostages has the potential to turn far uglier than it already has, up to and including a significant and needless loss of life at the hands of what can hardly be described — based on information in the public domain — as a quality individual.

Despite the fact hostages were reportedly made to hold an Islamic State flag across the windows of the cafe at one point (and that the flag remained visible for much of the day yesterday), this is not — as first feared — an organised terror attack; rather, a so-called “lone wolf” acting independently, and said to be a “fringe Islamist.” At time of publication (1.30am, Melbourne time) the man has made no demands except to speak to Tony Abbott on commercial radio, and his motives are unknown.

And it needs to be noted that the mainstream Islamic community has co-operated fully with Australian authorities — as it should — and that there is no reason at all to believe it has any connection whatsoever to this incident.

Even so, the 49-year-old Iranian perpetrator — Man Haron Monis, also self-styled as “Sheik Haron” — is “well known” to Police; having arrived in Australia in 1996 as a refugee he apparently has a lengthy criminal record, including charges over the sexual assault and indecent assault of a woman in 2002, and is currently on bail pending other charges arising from the murder of his ex-wife last year.

In short, the guy shouldn’t even be in Australia as far as I’m concerned: he should have been sent back to wherever was so terrible he fled here to begin with. And if that wasn’t possible, he should never have been released on bail. The fact he was makes a mockery of the community’s expectations of due legal process. The siege underway in Sydney proves it.

Armed with a sawn-off shotgun and a machete, this monument to Australia’s refugee intake program is now holding perhaps 20 innocent bystanders hostage in a one-man reign of terror that has shut down a large portion of the Sydney CBD, disrupted the lives of Sydneysiders generally, and caused great outrage and angst that has resonated far beyond Sydney.

And the only positive thing I can find to say about this incident (aside from the fact none of the hostages have been killed) is that five of those held captive have managed to escape.

But the thing that really concerns me (as I wind up for the day for a few hours’ sleep) is the fact this fellow is known to be irrational, is clearly violent and unstable, and — with the siege already 16 hours old as I publish this — must be growing tired.

There is no telling what he might do if he feels he is losing control over the situation he has created as the veil of sleep begins to descend on him.

He may opt to simply lash out, which would be the worst possible development in an already fraught situation.

And as traumatised as those hostages remaining trapped in the Lindt cafe must be, their ordeal must surely grow worse — and more scarring — the longer it continues.

I don’t pretend for a moment to possess the full facts available to relevant officials and service personnel; these details are rightly known only to those directly involved in dealing with the crisis and who have tried to bring it to a peaceful conclusion.

But in making comment I simply relay an opinion I hold, and one which I have found, during the day yesterday, to be held by the vast majority of the people with whom the siege arose in conversation.

The best thing that could happen, of course, is that he could release the prisoners, hand himself over to the NSW Police, and the whole unfortunate business be quietly dealt with; and this clearly remains a possibility.

The next-best option would be for Monis to fall asleep, and for his hostages to overwhelm and restrain him.

But in the absence of either of those things coming to pass — and if Police around Martin Place can find their way into the building quietly through a roof, acquire a suitable vantage point, or obtain a clear enough sight through the glass windows with a heavy calibre weapon — I have little compunction in suggesting they simply shoot the bastard.

Any concern that such a move would merely inflame others, and inspire copycat and/or retributive events, should be weighed carefully against the ongoing impact of the siege on those trapped inside the cafe and the growing traumatisation a drawn-out and fruitless endeavour to end the event peacefully might cause them in the longer term.

In the end, the welfare of his victims (which is what they are) must be the first priority of those who seek to liberate them; and after almost a full day of the obscenity having now played out, a single fatal shot might also be the easiest, safest and fastest way to bring it to an end.

There is a suggestion in the mainstream press this morning that the siege could drag on for days. It shouldn’t, and it shouldn’t be permitted to.

If it is safe for Police to do so, they should simply shoot the bastard. It might be the least damaging of all the options to deal with this monster that are presently being canvassed.

Short of unconditional surrender by the bandit, however, there is no ideal solution to this obscenity.

 

Endeavour Hills: Would-Be Cop Killer No “Martyr”

AN 18-YEAR-OLD terror suspect — who on Tuesday took two knives to a Melbourne Police station and hospitalised two officers with serious injuries, only to be shot dead for his trouble — is not a hero nor, as one senior Islamic State figure described him, a martyr; this was a criminal thug posing a clear danger to Police and being dealt with accordingly. Enforcement of the law transcends the wounded sensitivities of apologists for illegal acts.

A report in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph today — that Muslim terror suspect Numan Haider, who was shot and killed by Police after what can only be described as the attempted murder of two Police officers, has been hailed as the “first martyr” on Australian soil — is disturbing for many reasons, and emblematic of much that is wrong with attitudes in some quarters of Australian society to the real and growing risk brainwashed thugs pose in everyday Australian life.

It goes without saying that Haider is not “a martyr,” nor a hero of any kind; his actions were those of a criminal thug operating from a position of complete contempt for the lives of others and for Australian law, and whilst the death of any young person is a tragedy, the nature of the wounds he inflicted on the Police officers now recovering in hospital suggests the use of force against him was proportionate, reasonable, and warranted in the circumstances as they stood.

The fact that anyone — of any race or religion — would seek to uphold the death of an attempted murderer as any kind of victory or clarion call based on any set of formalised principles is indicative of the indecency and perversion of those principles; yet Abdul Salam Mahmoud has done precisely that, and it is to be hoped this dangerous “leader” of Islamic State is ignored by the impressionable and/or disaffected young Muslims his hateful creed is targeted to.

Mahmoud — who (surprise, surprise) also goes by a number of other names — claims not to belong to any militant Islamic group. Yet he has travelled to (and remains in) Syria, where he claims to be undertaking “humanitarian” work in an Islamic State-controlled city, and along with his rally call to others to emulate the deeds of Haider is believed to be working to mobilise violent reprisals in the wake of the opening US bombing sorties against Islamic State targets in the Middle East.

First things first: there are those in Australia who argue it is a violation of international law and human rights to advocate that someone like Mahmoud should be permanently denied re-entry to Australia; yet sovereign governments (including ours very recently) are within their rights to enact legislation designed to protect their people, and stripping someone like Mahmoud of his passport and/or his Australian citizenship (if he holds it) is the very least, literally, the Australian government can do.

For one thing, his utterances on the Haider matter, and on Islamic State actions more widely, show that he is more than capable of operating contrary to Australian interests, even from the confines of his Syrian bolt hole; for another, if he were to be left “stateless” as a result of rescinding the means for him to re-enter and/or subsequently remain in Australia, then it’s apparent that where he is, right now, is a destination of choice: not one of coercion.

And there are enough lawless types in Australian jails — and on Australian streets, courtesy of Courts that release dangerous offenders who should never be released — without adding to the problem by knowingly allowing those bent on destroying the Australian way of life to return here once they have left.

So let’s not entertain any delusions that the kid killed on Tuesday was “a martyr;” and let’s not allow the favoured mythology of the Left that he was “the real victim” in the piece to take root and fester.

I have been reading Piers Akerman’s piece — also in the Tele this morning — and he makes the case that Australia’s “publicly funded media” (read: the ABC and SBS) have portrayed violent Muslim bullies as victims on every occasion to date on which radicalised Muslim thugs have either engaged in violent rioting or other outrages in Australia, or whenever international terrorist atrocities linked directly to the likes of Al-Qaeda, such as the September 11 attacks and the Bali bombings, are committed.

Readers know that I ripped into the ABC over its #QandA programme this week; in that article I included a link to another from Miranda Devine, who pointed out that the entire debate on #QandA had been shanghaied and then dominated by two overbearing Muslim women, who exploited the platform gifted to them by the ABC with the unmistakable objective to either hoodwink viewers into believing that Muslims had no case to answer in relation to the escalation of domestic terrorism activity, or — if that failed — to plead victimisation and misunderstanding as absolving factors.

I don’t know how many times I can say that the proportion of the Muslim population in Australia that constitutes a problem is a small minority; it’s a case made by even those commentators in the mainstream who the Left and the apologists for this kind of outrage brand as the least tolerant people in Australia for calling a spade a spade: Piers Akerman is one of those, and — as usual — he nonetheless reiterates the same point in the article I have linked to this morning.

But minority or not, what happened in Endeavour Hills on Tuesday in the mortgage belt on Melbourne’s south-eastern outskirts cannot be considered in isolation from the points made by Piers, Miranda and so many others like them.

Piers in particular makes the point today that just as the Islamic Council of Victoria has refused to condemn Haider, political leaders have been reticent to state that Islam (or, at the minimum, elements within it) constitute a problem, and I would simply say that if the peak body of the Muslim community in this state refuses to condemn the attempted murder (or, if we’re dishing out any benefit of doubt, aggravated assault and grievous bodily harm) of two people by one of its members, then there is a very real problem here indeed.

This country is regularly (and rightly) described as a “nation of immigrants” and, to be sure, the tide of newcomers from all parts of the world continues; this is the best country in the world and it has made many, many people of different backgrounds welcome, but with the welcome mat comes obligations that simply aren’t being met by some of those who should stand to lose the most from failing to do so.

There is nothing to explain away when it comes to those who seek to thumb their nose at Australian law; there is no tolerance or sympathy due to those who would foment violence and terror in our society.

It is unfortunate that the majority of Muslims who want to do the right thing are unfairly tarnished by the deeds of those in their midst who refuse to do so, but if their communities harbour murderers and terrorists, then those unsavoury characters must be rooted out and dealt with — and without fear, favour or remorse.

Just like any other criminal miscreant, in any other branch of Australian society, would be.

Other groups who have come to this country have found little trouble in observing our laws and ways of life, and in times past those in immigrant communities who have fallen foul of the law have been punished by it: and their communities, far from seeking to excuse themselves from any connection to the wrongdoings of their members, have supported and co-operated with Australian authorities to the hilt.

If the Islamic Council of Victoria chooses not to condemn the 18-year-old Haiden, then that is its own choice.

But it cannot then subsequently complain with any credibility that its members are being targeted, and harassed, and vilified; it can’t have it both ways.  It is this very double standard that fuels resentment in the wider community, and fuels the notion that “minorities” like the Muslim community receive special and differential treatment to the majority. “Tolerance” and wilful blindness are not the same thing. The chardonnay drunks and compassion babblers of the Left are culpable in this regard.

And whilst it doesn’t make it right of course, when even the peak bodies in Australia’s Muslim communities refuse to stand in complete lockstep with Australian authorities when their members break the law, there is no moral high ground for them to occupy in the denunciation of the alleged misdeeds of others.

I’m sorry if that offends anyone but it’s that simple.

There is every indication that the rise of Islamic terrorism — which in reality is merely a pretext for vicious animals to rape and torture and kill whoever they like, using “Islam” as the pretext for doing so, and has nothing to do with the moderate Muslim community — will become a permanent and worsening feature of Western societies such as ours unless it is stamped out now, and stamped out quickly.

There is a disgusting irony in Mahmoud’s call to arms in retaliation for US bombing raids on Islamic State positions in Syria based on an exhortation about “how many more (Muslim) sisters should we wait to be abused, how many more lands do we want to see bombed, how many more children do you want to hear cry” when Islamic State, in establishing the territorial foothold it now occupies in the Middle East, raped the women and children, tortured the victims and killed anyone who stood in the way of their doing so.

It makes any pretence to legitimacy of the propaganda flowing out of insurgent Muslim mouthpieces in Syria and Iraq, and intended to fire up Islamic fervour to do the same thing in countries like Australia, ring very hollow indeed.

Was the would-be cop killer a victim? I’d argue any 18-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong. He is said to have been from a good, middle class Afghani family. None of the media coverage of the Endeavour Hills incident suggests he was otherwise mentally impaired. If he was motivated to try to kill a couple of policemen as a result of attempts to radicalise Muslim youths, I would contend he was capable of making his own choice.

The last thing this kid was is a victim.

Those who would hold him up as a martyr — or seek to emulate and expand on this “first strike” against the West in Australia — should be rounded up and either jailed or thrown out of the country; and steps taken to ensure that those cheering this enterprise on from the distant sidelines of the Middle East never set foot on Australian soil again: irrespective of whose feelings get hurt in doing so.

Faced with a heightened threat of terrorist atrocities on Australian soil, the rule of law takes precedence over the finger-shakers and outrage merchants of the Left who would leave the perpetrators well alone because “minorities” deserve “tolerance.”

And far from the denialist position of downplaying the actions of Haiden, the Islamic community taking the lead — rather than being prodded into mild and reluctant statements of reprimand of its own — would do more good than harm.

 

Muslim Terror Arrests: Round Them Up, Throw Them Out

WHEN TERRORIST REPRISAL is threatened against law enforcement agencies for doing their job, Australia has an urgent problem to deal with; dozens of arrests in Sydney and Brisbane yesterday are likely to be the tip of the iceberg, with retribution threatened against Police, the military and ASIO and reports of a foiled plot to infiltrate Parliament House. No tolerance should be shown to lawless, vicious thugs plying their wares in this country.

Sometimes in this column, it seems I’m playing a broken record: making the same arguments once again, in this case after yet another chilling reminder that the menace of ISIS/Islamic State/Al-Qaeda is not confined to the Middle Eastern war zone it seeks to establish a terrorist Islamic state upon, but rather threatens the free world.

And in talking about terrorists, jihadists, mujahideen or whatever they want to call themselves, it’s a mark of the impact those on the hard Left in Australia have had that any disclaimer at all needs to be attached to a discussion of “radical Islam,” “Muslim terrorists” or similar: as one writer opined in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph this morning, the perpetrators of this growing outrage — especially those “home-grown” adherents seeking to join the “fight” — actively seek to be recognised as the warriors of Islam, and in acknowledging this elementary truth no slight should be inferred by the vast majority of Australian Muslims who simply want to live in peace.

Yesterday’s anti-terrorism operation, the largest in Australian history, poses more problems than it solves, but Australians can at the very minimum be reassured that those agencies charged with their protection — ASIO, the various Police forces across the country, and the military — are possessed of sufficient mettle to discharge the obligation that becomes them.

It’s a valid point; already, military personnel have been advised to be vigilant on the basis of a heightened threat of attack by terrorist groups that extends to their families; ASIO is said to be targeted, too, over its thwarting of a plot to penetrate Parliament House in Canberra (to achieve God only knows what, but it’s not too hard to guess). We’ll come back to that in a bit.

But calm and sober voices can be heard amid the seething reactions of those who would strike at Australia, Australians and the symbols of our way of life, and amid the entirely justifiable outrage of ordinary Australians who did not ask for the “Islamic State” to have any place in this country, and who are affronted by the determination of those who now seek to see to it that it does.

Voices like Tim Priest‘s in the Tele, who makes the compelling case that defects in governance on Australia’s part, as well as those elements of the Muslim community who cannot and/or will not live by Australian laws and standards, are equally to blame for the rise of the so-called “home-grown” Islamic terrorist.

Or that of a favourite of this column, Piers Akerman, who eloquently argues the case that our all-things-to-all-people, risk-averse, “offend nobody” politicians commit a grave injustice against law-abiding Australians — including the vast bulk of the Muslim community — by shying away from any mention of the Islamic and/or Muslim colours of those seeking to commit their obscene outrages on Australian soil; Piers is also one of the many opinion writers today who acknowledge that Police have been assisted by law-abiding individuals from the Muslim community, and his views can hardly be decried as bigoted or discriminatory.

Yet calm and sober discussion of what promises — literally — to wreak untold carnage and mayhem in Australia is entirely compatible with ruthless, relentless and determined action to identify and round up those who would participate in such things, root them out of Australian society, and to the extent allowable under Australian law, throw them out of the country.

And in spite of what some of the chardonnay drunks, compassion babblers and self-styled do-gooders with their bleeding-hearted bullshit might protest, those who participate in the planning of terrorist atrocities on Australian soil are every inch committing a crime as those who, unhindered and/or undetected, actually go ahead and do it. So no nonsense in comments today from anyone at the Communist Party Greens, thanks.

Those of us who know people who suffered the misfortune to be caught up in the London bombings, or the September 11 attacks in the US, or the Bali bombings know too well that terrorist outrages are no trifling matter to score political points from, nor a vehicle to assert some purported moral superiority that doesn’t exist: those who seek to do so should be ashamed, and the misty-eyed sentiment that “it could never happen here” echoes perfectly similar sentiments in other free countries whose innocence of such crimes has long-since been violated.

Two of the insidiously barbaric plots foiled by yesterday’s raids and arrests are horrific: one murderous storyline was apparently set to feature terrorist snipers picking off the security detail on the ministerial wing of Parliament House, allowing straightforward access to the Prime Minister’s courtyard and, as one report rather euphemistically described the consequent vantage point from which to keep shooting, “a line of sight into the Prime Minister’s office.”

Another involved Islamic State terrorists randomly snatching and abducting a tourist from Sydney’s Martin Place, beheading the victim on camera, and then sending the footage to what we’ll call the Islamic State press office in Syria for broadcast and propaganda purposes.

This kind of thing — or anything like it — has no place in Australia.

In a way, Australians had a foretaste of this two years ago, as Muslims rioted through Sydney on the flimsy pretext of being “offended” about a nonsense film made in America by an Egyptian Coptic Christian — in breach of parole conditions applied to him at the time — which saw these undesirable Muslim miscreants call for (among other things) beheadings to occur in Australia in accordance with a strict interpretation of Sharia law.

It was unacceptable then, and it is unacceptable now.

I have been criticised in the past for advocating the deportation of these specimens of human filth from our shores wherever possible, and to reiterate — again — the degraded human state to which I refer has nothing to do with their religion, but everything to do with the fact these are bad people who simply do not belong in this country: irrespective of what religious beliefs they hold.

But the problem with throwing them in jail stems from the very characteristic that makes Islamic State such a dangerous presence in Australia in the first place; these networks are comprised of people who are first-class networkers, recruiters and brainwashers, and their recruitment practices tend to focus on angry, disaffected and marginalised people who believe the world — and the country — have grievously wronged them.

How many martyrs and wounded souls are potentially available to such groups within prison populations?

Yesterday’s raids, arrests and associated counter-terrorist operations are merely the first step in what is likely to be an incessant process of finding those who plot against Australia; and those charged with undertaking them — in intelligence gathering, operations and initiation — are to be congratulated rather than criticised or condemned.

Sadly, however, Australia is proving to be a fertile hiring ground for the terrorist machines wreaking havoc in other parts of the world, and the prospect of similar violence and atrocities being carried out on our shores is not hypothetical at all: it is real, imminent and deadly, as the plots thwarted yesterday chillingly demonstrate.

Lock these barbarians away by all means, and get them off the streets, but I reiterate the position on this issue I have held throughout: if they travel abroad to participate in terrorist activities, their Australian passports should be cancelled; those of them holding another citizenship in addition to that of Australia, their Australian citizenship should be rescinded and those affected thrown out of the country.

Let’s be honest: anyone caught planning or executing their savage outrages in this country don’t belong here; and the simple legislative change to citizenship arrangements would merely see those caught in its web either marooned in or deported to countries they profess to want to set up their own state in anyway.

Frankly, our government should do everything in its power to help them get there; and if they find the going a bit too rough once they arrive — like the so-called “Cream Puff Brigade” we looked at a week or two ago — then really, that’s too bad.

 

Terror And Reality: Those Who “Hail War With The West” Are Not “Aussies”

WITH THE elevation of Australia’s official terror threat from “medium” to “high” — meaning a terrorist attack on Australian soil is considered likely — has come greater media coverage of locally-based Muslims bent on “jihad” against the West; from threats against military personnel and plots to carry out terror strikes in this country, to travelling to fight “jihad” in the name of ISIS, those who do so have no right to call themselves Australians.

Until very recently, with the advent and apparent entrenchment of ISIS and Al-Qaeda in a rapidly expanding tract of “Islamic Caliphate” territory in the Middle East, this column has mostly avoided talking about issues primarily based on Islam; such matters have become an incendiary sore point in Australia, with those who (rightly) point to problems of spiralling religious violence in other Western countries potentially becoming replicated in Australia slapped down — and armed with a pile of legislation designed to outlaw their grievances — by an army of chardonnay-swilling, politically correct trendies determined to ram “diversity” down the throats of whoever dares as much as question it, let alone voice any opposition to it.

I have steered clear of such things because in many respects they are arguments you can’t win; there are Muslim people who simply want to be left alone and to live in peace (in Australia and elsewhere) and there are those who want to kill infidels, wage “jihad,” and rape and murder and pillage — all in the name of Allah, of course; it’s religion and faith that is used to justify such slaughter.

Those who defend the rights of the Muslims in the first category to live in Australia are shot down by those determined to round up and deport all Muslims in order to ensure the complete removal of those in the second category from Australian shores, and the paradoxical truth of the matter is that the arguments of both carry some merit.

But those Muslims who live in Australia and who have become “radicalised,” to use the current jargon — and who want to either mount terrorist attacks in Australia, or skip the country to fight alongside “brethren” in the Middle East in a “jihad” against the Western world — have no right to call themselves Australian, and as far as I am concerned should not be welcome in this country under any circumstances.

The official escalation this week of Australia’s terror threat to “high” for the first time ever — and taking it to the second-highest level on the four-tiered scale adopted a decade ago — comes as the issue of radical Islam and the threat it poses globally is arguably the most prominent it has been since Muslim terrorists flew hijacked aircraft into various landmarks in the USA on 11 September 2001, killing thousands.

What is now clearly two rival complements of radical fundamental Muslims — Islamic State and Al-Qaeda (the latter initially thought to have spawned the former) — are busily laying waste to a rapidly growing tract of the Middle East, and the obscenity of the crimes being committed against humanity in the process are too revolting to countenance.

In the three and a half years I have been publishing this forum, I have posted articles devoted to Islam just four times, and it speaks volumes that one of these — an angry piece penned in the wake of Muslim riots in Sydney two years ago — remains, to this day, the most widely read article ever published here (although a pre-election expose last year about Communist Party Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young comes a very close second).

And it says much, too, that of the other three, two of them have been in the past ten days, both dealing with ISIS: those who didn’t see these can access them here and here.*

But I read yesterday, among other things on the subject, an article in the Weekend Australian that demands comment for the simple reason that anyone who “hails war with the West” might well possess Australian residency or citizenship — although those things can be changed — but they have no moral or social right whatsoever to categorise themselves as “Australian.”

To put it bluntly, these are not the kind of people this country either needs or wants, and they should be deported. But more on that later.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the fundamentalist terror advocates that have at least partly underpinned the Commonwealth’s heightened state of terror alert is the fact their activities are so open; these people are either extremely careless or extremely cavalier, conducting their campaigns of recruitment and propaganda in full view of anyone who cares to look.

The Australian‘s story features “Australian Islamic State fighter” Abu Khaled, who it seems maintains an easily accessible propaganda presence on Twitter and Facebook; Khaled — said to be a “former Melbourne man” of Fijian and Cambodian ancestry, neither of which are typical of Islam — is apparently also the “star” of a soon to be released propaganda video from Islamic State.

I’m not going to drone on about every detail carried in these reports (although a selection may be accessed here, here, here and here for those wishing to read further). Suffice to say, however, Australia — thanks to immigration policies that are either inadequately rigorous and/or too easily circumvented when it comes to rooting out religiously motivated troublemakers — now finds itself at risk from the local adherents of these murderous groups who hate everything about liberal democracy, freedom and the rule of law, and anything that doesn’t fit with their extremely strict conservative interpretation of the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an.

For once, one will say something favourable about the Fairfax press; it’s obsession with the hobby horses of the Left (such as “tolerance” and “inclusion”) has seen it publish today a piece focused on Ibrahim Abu Mohammad, the Grand Mufti of Australia, who not for the first time presents as the reasonable voice of the moderate Muslim community (which — as I have repeatedly noted in this column — is actually most of the Muslim community).

But Muslim voices such as Dr Ibrahim’s are all too infrequently heard: it may be that comparatively little attention is paid to them, it may be because of prejudice, or it may be that they simply don’t speak up to the degree they ought to. But what seems indisputable is that those who seek to act in the name of Islam to perpetuate mass killings and other outrages pay no heed to responsible leaders in their communities like Dr Ibrahim whatsoever.

I am not a bigot or a redneck, and I disagree with those whose “answer” to the threat posed by violent religious jihadists is to throw every Muslim out of Australia; to do so (were it even possible) would be to respond to a local threat posed by the comparative few in a fashion utilising the polar opposite extreme to tar the many — wrongly — with the same brush.

By the same token, however, I am on the record in my view that nobody should be permitted to come to Australia and seek to change the place to what they think it should be, and in this sense the Muslim community does have to be singled out. The fact bacon is not sold in some mainstream food establishments for example, or that some multinationals sell halal meat only to avoid giving offence, is a nonsense that has no place in this country at all.

And the suggestion that arises periodically from some sections of the Muslim community that Australia should adopt Sharia law is an insult to more than 20 million Australians who are not of the Islamic faith, and frankly, those who advance the calls for it to be introduced have no place in Australia either.

Australia is a very welcoming country, perhaps the most welcoming in the world; as a nation of immigrants, one of our strengths is that we reflect the very best of many cultures alongside the primary roots of British settlement and, for those to whom it is important, Aboriginal custom.

Yet if one group wishing to come here wants Australia to adopt their laws in place of ours — in this case, Sharia — then they shouldn’t come here at all; they should stay where they are instead, however horrible they think their lot is, or go somewhere else that might be more sympathetic to their demands to overthrow the system — literally.

But with a welcoming and tolerant country also comes responsibilities.

On one level, I don’t really care if all of these so-called “jihadists” want to go off somewhere secluded and blow each other to kingdom come. In a macabre sense, if they want to do this to each other in a place nobody else has to be affected by it, they’d be doing the rest of the world a favour.

But on another, I think it is a moral and human outrage that in choosing to do so they are content — nay, happy — to rape and torture and kill civilians, innocents, women, children, the helpless and the unsuspecting.

And it is particularly disgusting that these atrocities are done in the name of “God,” “religion,” or any other justification based on exploiting and perverting a developed system of theological values.

The reason I have posted links to a broad sweep of what has been published on Islamic terrorism in Australia in the past couple of days (and there is plenty more; I’ve merely used the first few articles I encountered on my daily sweep of the news portals yesterday) is because nobody can seriously argue that there is no problem posed by violent, radicalised Islamic groups in this country, or by the gullible and dislocated individuals they are recruiting to their ranks.

I have said previously that any permanent Australian resident or citizen who travels to the Middle East to take part in the fighting going on in the name of Al-Qaeda and Islamic State should have their passports and citizenship revoked, and permanently denied re-entry to Australia.

If it leaves them stateless and consequently stranded in the middle of a war zone then frankly, so be it: life is full of choices, and choices come with consequences.

Australia cannot — despite the fervour and zeal of the Left — tolerate and diversify and compassion itself to the point that it becomes a haven for the murderous, the lunatic and the despotic.

Especially when the target of such people and the groups to which they belong is the way of life we enjoy in this country, and everything it stands for.

And I note that the problems that are now starting to really become apparent in Australia — even to those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to avert their eyes in denial — are not unique to this country; all over the Western world, in the USA, the UK and Europe (and even in places like Russia), organisations based on this radical brand of Islam are growing in strength and prominence, with everything they find disagreeable in their crosshairs.

Clearly, it is not possible to speak for those in other Western countries, although the sentiment probably holds good irrespective of whether we’re talking about Australia, the UK, or somewhere like the Netherlands, which is notorious for rising levels of Islamic violence and social trouble.

The escalation of Australia’s terror threat level is not something done on a whim, or for purely political reasons; indeed, the decision to do so stems from ASIO, not the Abbott government, and Bill Shorten must be given his due for publicly falling into lockstep with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in response (even if some of his less-principled colleagues see it as an opportunity for political point scoring).

And there’s no diplomatic way of saying this, so let’s call a spade a spade: the reason for the change in terror alert, very simply, is due to a threat posed by violent Islamic fundamentalists.

If any of the people involved in these terrorist cells — like Khaled who, of course, is long gone — possess the citizenship by birth or ancestry of any other country, then as far as I am concerned their Australian citizenships must be rescinded.

If they are off fighting overseas, then they will never return; if they continue to dwell on Australian shores, their tenure should be summarily and abruptly terminated, and they should be deported along with their vicious ideas and violent intentions.

There are too many compassion babbling voices peddling bleeding-hearted bullshit about being tolerant of diversity: this isn’t an issue of racial or religious diversity, per se. It is an issue of terrorism, of murder and brutality, of rape and torture and slaughter. Whatever the basis for such monstrosity can and should also form the basis upon which this country rids itself of the threat.

I’m happy for Muslim folk who go about their business peacefully to call Australia home for as long as they are prepared to join our way of life, and provided they do not expect to turn the place into a Sharia society: there is a place for that, and it isn’t here.

But those who revel in death and destruction — indeed, those who “hail war against the West” — have neither the right nor the entitlement to call themselves Australian. They do not belong here and they are not welcome. And by whatever means possible, now Australia faces a heightened risk of terrorist indecency being carried out on home soil, it warrants the removal of those who would perpetrate such horrors from our midst.

 

*The fourth was a piece opposing the establishment of a dedicated Muslim enclave in Sydney a couple of years ago; all I will say on the subject today — and no, I don’t want a debate on it now — is that most Muslim nations would look very poorly indeed (to put it extremely mildly) at a bunch of white Australians setting up closed enclaves in their own countries, and there’s no more justification for them to do it here as for us to do it there. Enough said.