Author: Andrew Bolt
Publication: Blogs.News.com
Date: February 26, 2010
URL: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_if_more_muslims_are_truly_a_problem/
WE didn't need the Rudd Government to tell
us this week that, ahem, our own Muslim community is now a growing terrorist
threat.
What we needed was to hear what the Government
planned to do about it.
And the answers in its new White Paper on
counter-terrorism?
Virtually zilch. Not even a word on whether
it would be wise to cut immigration from Muslim nations, now running at about
28,000 a year.
Nor was there anything about ending the mad
multiculturalism that rewards most those who integrate least.
Rather the reverse. The Government promised
more of the stuff that's clearly not doing the job - more of that "multiculturalism
and respect for cultural diversity to maintain a society that is resilient
to the hate-based and divisive narratives that fuel terrorism".
Hey, guys. If multiculturalism has made us
so "resilient to the hate-based and divisive narratives" of jihadism,
why does your White Paper admit that "numerous terrorist attacks"
have had to be "thwarted" in Australia since 2001, and that we now
have 20 people jailed on terrorism charges, 38 people charged after anti-terrorism
operations (presumably all, or mostly, Muslims, too) and 40 more denied passports?
That's sure a lot of strife from just 340,000
Australian Muslims, as measured by the last census.
We've actually got more Buddhists here, but
when did you last hear of any plotting to blow us up?
Like I said, the threat from our own home-grown
or imported jihadists was already perfectly clear.
We could figure that out just from this month's
news that another five Muslims in Sydney had been jailed for plotting terrorism
and gathering 12 firearms, 28,000 rounds of ammunition and four boxes of material
for high explosives.
But even more of a wake-up were the comments
from so many leaders of our Muslim community.
Uthman Badar, from the Australian arm of the
extremist Hizb ut-Tahrir, cried persecution, and claimed poor Muslims were
being prosecuted merely for their ideas: "The anti-terror laws were designed
to silence Muslims through fear and intimidation."
Samir Dandan, from the Lebanese Muslim Association,
also fed the poor-us-against-them division, saying Muslims believed they were
punished harder than the rest of us, while Keysar Trad, of them Islamic Friendship
Association, blamed the "anger" of Muslims on our own alleged violence
against Islamic countries.
Even more worryingly, 10 imams and 20 Muslim
"community leaders" met in Lakemba, at Australia's biggest mosque,
to sign a statement demanding police show them proof that the five jailed
men had criminal intentions.
Never mind that the police evidence had been
enough to convince an Australian jury: "Until we see the real evidence,
we believe that the reason for the arrests and convictions
is that these young men expressed or hold
opinions that contradict Australia's foreign policy towards majority Muslim
countries."
Meanwhile, outside the mosque, The Australian
reported, "a group of young men pumped their fists in the air and accused
ASIO of being dogs".
This is the scenario, repeated so often over
the past decade, that every Australian could see for themselves - of Muslims
planning or waging jihad, only to be defended or excused by "community
leaders".
And this is the reality that the Government's
White Paper now concedes in the frankest language I've heard in public.
"A ... shift apparent since 2004 has
been the increase in the terrorist threat from people born or raised in Australia,
who have become influenced by the violent jihadist message," it warns.
"A number of Australians are known to subscribe to this message, some
of whom might be prepared to engage in violence. Many of these individuals
were born in Australia and they come from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds."
And then this warning, so pregnant with implications:
"The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as
the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and/or
migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise
of their integration into their host society."
Let me decode that. The Government admits
the size of this growing terrorism threat depends on the size of our Muslim
population.
Isn't that then the debate we must have?
Yes, I know most Muslims here, my friends
included, are peace-loving Australians, and I do not mean to offend them or
expose them to unmerited suspicion. I also admire those Muslims I know who
have stood against the extremists. But I do mean to have a frank conversation.
After all, this report also points out terrorism
isn't necessarily related to poverty, and that our wanna-be terrorists are
often not the Muslims we accepted as immigrants, but their born-here children.
What's more, they come from a "wide range of ethnic groups".
That means we can't keep out tomorrow's terrorists
just by bringing in only nice, hard-working Muslims from countries we trust.
What of their later children, newly radicalised in mosques, universities or
prisons?
Surely one way to minimise the danger, then,
is to cut Muslim immigration, or at least freeze it until the jihadist wind
blows out.
Should we really be bringing in more than
28,000 people a year from Muslim lands such as Pakistan, the Middle East,
North Africa, Bangladesh, Somalia, Afghanistan and Indonesia?
But on this issue the Government says nothing.
Nor will it discuss dismantling multiculturalism, which at one stage had taxpayers
funding the pro-bin Laden Islamic Youth Movement of Australia.
But why is multiculturalism sacred, when even
this White Paper says one "pathway to violent extremism" is through
"identity politics"?
After all, multiculturalism subsidises identity
politics with your money while making Australia seem too weak or even shameful
to deserve the first loyalty of a confused young man.
So what did the Government, badly needing
a distraction from its insulation debacle, propose instead?
Only easy, uncontroversial tinkering with
controls at our borders, rather than anything to deal with the people who've
got through already.
There will be better border checks, for instance,
and our spy agencies will help try to stop the flood of boat people unleashed
by the Government's rash softening of our laws.
I don't mean to single this Government out
as unusually weak on the threat within. In some ways the Howard government
was even worse.
Example? The White Paper warns that a "small
number" of Muslims here support foreign terrorist groups that might use
Australia as "a suitable or convenient location for an attack on their
enemies".
It adds: "This includes groups with a
long history of engaging in terrorist acts and a current capability to commit
them, such as Lebanese Hizballah's External Security Organisation."
So Hezbollah (our spelling) has an active
terrorist wing and could strike here? Then why did John Howard as prime minister
pick for his Muslim Community Reference Group at least five Muslim leaders
who defended Hezbollah, including Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilali, then the Mufti
of Australia, and Sheik Fehmi Naji el-Imam, who succeeded him?
I am not saying these men would ever support
Hezbollah terrorist attacks here, but how many of their followers could be
trusted to draw the line? Answer: no one knows, but our experts fear. So until
we get more reassurance, we'll need more action than this paper proposes.
