Muslim leaders oppose Australian ‘anti-extremism’ policy

Muslim leaders oppose Australian ‘anti-extremism’ policy
Of course they do. Muslims oppose any move by infidels that hinders the spread of Islam. That’s why we should stiffen the thumbscrews even more when they whine…..
Muslim leaders oppose Australian 'anti-extremism' policy

Islamic Council of Victoria secretary says ‘counter-productive’ policy could ‘push disaffected young people into the hands of radical groups’

World Bulletin / News Desk

Muslim leaders have criticized the Australian government’s de-radicalization policy, saying it focuses on law enforcement measures and risks contributing to negative stereotypes about Islam.

Kuranda Seyit, secretary of the Islamic Council of Victoria and a leading voice in Victoria state’s Muslim community, said on Thursday that the policy is “punitive” and could potentially alienate disenchanted youth.

“It sends the message, we don’t want you, which could push disaffected young people into the hands of radical groups,” Seyit said. “From that perspective, it’s counter-productive. It’s also counter-productive in that it doesn’t give people any option for rehabilitation or reintegration.”

More of the same BS:

Muslim charities unfairly targeted over extremism in UK
Muslim charities unfairly targeted over extremism in UK

Close scrutiny of humanitarian NGOs over suspected links to terrorism makes Muslims feel there’s no place for them in modern Britain

Last year September, Muslim Charities Forum (MCF), an umbrella organisation for 10 UK-based Muslim-led international NGOs – including Islamic Relief, Islamic Help and Muslim Hands – was dealt a devastating blow after a newspaper reported some of its well-known members had links to terrorism.–World Bulletin / News Desk

Since last year, Australia has been concerned about its nationals joining or supporting groups fighting in the Middle East and the impact it could have on the country in the case of their return.

Last month, Prime Minister Tony Abbott introduced a controversial law under which Australian dual nationals suspected of involvement in “terrorism” can be stripped of citizenship.

Australia has already banned its citizens from traveling to Mosul and Syria’s Raqqa province, unless they have a “legitimate purpose” for being there – a measure civil rights groups have criticized for placing the burden of proof on an individual.

Seyit’s comments came a day after the president of the powerful, Sydney-based Lebanese Muslim Association harshly condemned the government’s de-radicalization approach, dismissing it as “pointless” and “a mess”.

In an opinion piece Wednesday, Samier Dandan had described the policy as outdated and simplistic, saying it emphasized law enforcement instead of focusing on social factors, as advised by international academics.

He slammed a recent government driven “discussion paper,” saying it referred to radicalization “as though it was a result of Islamic ideology,” and criticized the new citizenship-stripping legislation.

Seyit, a teacher at an Islamic school, expressed agreement with much of what Dandan said, despite stopping short of referring to the de-radicalization policy as pointless.

He supported Dandan’s criticism of the language used in the recent Countering Violent Extremism summit discussion paper.

“It perpetuates stereotypes and the assumption that Islam is intrinsically linked to some sort of extremist ideology,” he said, his exasperation apparent. “It didn’t mention the generic problem of extremism which exists in white supremacist and Neo Nazi groups and other religious ideologies.”

Seyit told Anadolu Agency that the language used by the Abbott government feeds into the narrative of a division in society, which “leads to the emergence of [anti-Islamic] groups like Reclaim Australia.”

“Everybody now thinks there is an epidemic of terrorists threatening every Australian, which presents a huge danger for social cohesion,” he warned.

Seyit also voiced his concern that the government isn’t seeking broad-based feedback from Australia’s Muslim community, referring to a meeting he had attended with the Attorney General George Brandis last year as purely “tokenism”.

“It wasn’t a two-way dialogue. We were being spoken at,” he said.

Seyit underlined that Australia’s Islamic community wants “an approach that is preventative and rehabilitative rather than this sort of punitive approach the government is currently taking.”

Also on Thursday, Abbott released Australia’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy, a comprehensive long-term national counter-terrorism blueprint.

A statement from the Prime Minister’s office stated: “Australians currently face the most significant threat from terrorism in our nation’s history.”

It reminded how the National Terrorism Public Alert level had been raised to high in September, since when the country has experienced two attacks – with six others allegedly being disrupted – and charges against 23 people as a result of counter-terrorism operations.

“There are now over 120 Australians fighting in Syria and Iraq. Approximately 160 Australians actively support extremist groups through financing and recruitment,” it added. “The threat of terrorism is real and continues to grow and evolve.”

A spokesperson for the minister assisting the prime minister on counter terrorism, Michael Keenan, replied a request for response to Dandan’s opinion piece.

“These remarks have been taken out of context and are incorrect. The discussion paper referred to was a description of Australia’s threat environment,” the response said. “This acknowledged that Islamist inspired extremists, fuelled by the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, remain the dominant terrorist threat to Australia.”

It added that the discussion paper had noted that “these extremists have a distorted and militant interpretation of Islam, which they use to justify violence in the pursuit of political, religious and ideological ambitions.”

The response also said the government “recognises there is no one path to radicalisation and the motivations and drivers are unique to each individual.”

Twitter erupts with calls to ban Islam 

This is from January 12 2015

On Sunday, some three million marched across France in responbse to Paris shootings.  Barack Obama did not attend, but 50 other world leaders did.
On Sunday, some three million marched across France in responbse to Paris shootings. Barack Obama did not attend, but 50 other world leaders did.
Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

On Saturday, we reported that many social media users called for Muslims to be deported to any one of a number of countries run by Islamic regimes. But in the wake of recent events in France, that doesn’t seem to be enough. Over the last several days, a large number of Twitter users decided to call for an outright banof the religion. One person, for example, suggested banning Islam in response to a Sunday report that the Obama administration has called a summit to discuss ways to stop violent extremism.

“Ban Islam,” the person said. “Wipe out anyone who wants to be Muslim,” the Twitter user added.

Another person, responding to news that French Prime Minister Manuel Valls announced a war on radical Islam, suggested banning the religion. “We are at war — not a war against a religion, not a war against a civilization, but to defend our values, which are universal,” Valls said Saturday. “It’s a war against terrorism and radical Islamism, against everything that would break our solidarity, our liberty, our fraternity.”

“Correction,” one person said. “At war with Islam, as its goal is world domination. Until Muslim countries open & free, ban Islam.” We found many others responding with similar messages.

Another Twitter user called for banning Islam in response to an op-ed at the Investor’s Business Daily calling for New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to reinstate monitoring of mosques. The user, going by the Twitter handle “Eleanor Roosevelt,” said there “[s]houldn’t be mosques in civilized countries” until Muslim countries are free and tolerant of other beliefs. “Deport Muslims. Ban Islam,” the user said.

“How long can the #West deny that it must ban Islam?” one person asked. “You just can’t trust followers of Islam, we need to rid the world of this plague,” another person added.

On Sunday, some 3 million people across France participated in a “unity” march against terrorism. Fifty world leaders — minus President Obama — joined the crowds to stand with France. But some on Twitter weren’t interested in the show of solidarity.

“I’m not interested in unity marches or candle lit vigils or weeping in public and feeling sorry for myself,” one person said. “I want real change. Ban Islam!”

“Rallying is good but emotion and speeches don’t work France,” another person added. “BAN ISLAM! These murdering radical savages will only hurt your nation!”

A number of Twitter users posted a link from August 2014 that includes an article calling Islam worse than Nazism. The article, written by a person identifying himself as an atheist author and poet who lived as a Sunni Muslim for 23 years, says that “all Muslims have the ‘right’ of killing and raping you, grabbing all your properties, your country, land, money and anything else.”

“You have heard many times that ‘Islam is a tolerant religion,'” the article adds. “That is the biggest lie that you can hear all over the World, and this lie is used as a mask to hide the terrible face of Islam.”

According to the article, Islam “must be declared illegal all over the world.” The article warned that “the world will meet with a big tragedy” when Islamists get more power, just as the world suffered because of Nazism.

Another person, responding to news of leaked Al Jazeera emails showing disdain for the victims of the Paris attacks, said Islam needs to be banned. “Islam isn’t a religion. It’s a cult and an exceptionally toxic one at that,” one person said. “America needs to ban Islam,” another person added.

But can an entire religion be banned? In 2013, several media outlets reported that the African nation of Angola banned Islam after closing mosques in the country. The government of Angola, however, denied those reports. Christians, meanwhile, face real persecution and possible eradication in Muslim countries like Iraq and Syria, Open Doors said in its latest edition of the “World Watch List.”

15 thoughts on “Muslim leaders oppose Australian ‘anti-extremism’ policy”

  1. No islam Appeasers (of any type) in Australia …
    No islam (of any type) in Australia …

    EACH & EVERY one of Australia’s
    (because islam is STILL in Australia)
    • Politicians
    • Politicials
    • Local Government Councillors
    • PC (Cultural Marxist) Mind Controlled Twats n Twits
    are only EVER …
    1. TRAITORS
    2. SUBVERSIVES
    3. SEDITIONERS
    These Criminals ALL Say … islam is a religion of Peace !
    … and THEY are Assisting/Enabling the ongoing islam invasion of Australia !
    (Do you want to be on the islam beheaded list !
    – you will be … even ifyou are only an islam Appeaser !)

    internment/deportation/or just the plain simple “Removal” camps for islam Appeasers and islams is THE ONLY SOLUTION to the islam Appeaser assisted and abetted islam invasion !

    1. Go Back Where You Came From !”
      Recycled butt stuff – again
      (courtesy of that islam Appeasing …
      [Australian Taxpayer Funded] SBS )

      [Australian Taxpayer Funded] SBS Asks you to ….
      Imagine having no home
      … to go back to !

      However …
      (the inverse TRUTH RULE applies here – AS ALWAYS)
      This is what SBS and islam plans for you
      … but the islam Appeaser and islam plan is to have it look like they are talking about islams who have lost THEIR Homes !
      … but the islam Appeaser ( … who have brown islam smelly noses) and islam plan is to TAKE Australian’s Homes from them !
      (Australian’s – YOU are the ones who will have NO WHERE to go !
      … think about that
      … Oh! – not to worry – you’ll be beheaded )

      … Compliments of your (soon also to be) beheaded Local/State/Federal Authority !

      1. Look at how the current crop of islams in Australia have displaced entire suburbs of non-islams – who have been FORCED to move because of terror tactics used by the incoming islams (AND AIDED AND ASSISTED BY OUR “AUTHORITIES”) to drive the previous suburb non-islam occupants OUT !!!

        eg – NO-GO ZONES JUST IN SYDNEY …
        Lakemba and surrounding areas such as Punchbowl, Wiley Park, Bankstown and Auburn.

  2. Someday soon, some Western country will announce a moratorium on muslim immigration (legal, refugee and asylum) and that will be the turning point. That day cannot come soon enough.

  3. I support the Rule of Reciprocity as a solution, which means that the number of Muslims in free countries and the civil rights, social welfare, freedom of religion and number of mosques enjoyed should reflect the equivalent for Christians and minorities in Muslim countries, cade by case and quota by quota in bilateral agreement subjected to free and independent inspection and interviews of the peoples affected.

    Over such conditions… the surplus goes back to the ancestral home, starting from the least peaceful and law abiding.

    1. All refugees should be rescued and assisted by a combined navy of U.N. and the closer nation of first and direct destination.
      The assistance and care should happen in floating hospitals – like intercontinental crusers – and following the classification, each refugees should reach the most suitable destination to his/her identity and culture.

      Islam must understand that the West has had enough of eminent and ordinary trojan horses seeking a theocratic paradigm shift of advanced democracies and constitutions.

      Based on such clear understanding and the “Rule of Reciprocity” some peaceful and bilateral relations will still be possible and profitable.

      1. You got that wrong, Byron. Muslims are not ‘refugees’, they are ‘migrants’ with entitlements. The intention is to settle behind enemy lines to bring the dar-al-harb into the fold of Islam. It is not our business to ‘rescue’ them, it is our duty to keep our citizens safe from Mohammedan invasion and colonisation. There are 56 and a half Muslim countries. By the law of allah, the sharia, they all have an obligation, a sacred duty, to assist their Muslim brothers and sisters in need. Curiously, all these “refugees” are directed towards infidel lands, which must be stopped at all cost.

        1. Muslims could be refugees when they flee from attacks – either provoked or suffered by other hostile counterparts or Islamic confessions.
          In the mess taking place many arevecinomic migrants.
          My point is that whatever they are we cannot act unethically and without compassion.
          The rescue for both entities should take place on neutral ground. What better than the sea itself, where classification could/should follow assistance and recovery?

          I agree with you in re-addresding the Muslim classified to the most suitable and affine destination… which is not the same for the Christians as well confirmed by plenty evidences and death toll…
          Islam has already got plenty of objectives and penetration into the West…
          Instead of fair reciprocity a further level of persecution and annihilation of Christendom and human rights has been imposed in the overall… – which mean that some countries have learned to be more liberal… e.g. Jordan, Tunisia, somehow even Egypt following the MB/Sharia stage with Morsi and the severe toll dumped in the Copts.
          Even Muslim countries in Asia are not all the same, in spite we are far from “fair reciprocity” in terms of freedom, security, human and civil rights, immigration…
          Saudi Arabia has preached and claimed much but reciprocity close to NIL.

          I am concerned that a major incident – could cause a sort of backlash of wrong proportion…

          We should also remember that a radical solution implying radical expulsion would imply the definitive anhilation of Christians “over there” – likely not just equivalent expulsion… and sacrifice if human lives on both side that can be assuredly avoided with a well pondered and timely solution via effective and supervised rule of reciprocity and calibrated closure of immigration.

          Those Muslim countries who cannot afford reciprocity in terms of reverse immigration from the West delivered to millions of our new poor – as few of them are as wealthy as Emirates, SA and Qatar… – can still show and compensate by the good will of civil adjustments and civilized solution of the rampant persecution oo Christians… implying the revision of their jurisprudence…
          It is clear that in spite the prudent catalyzer of Christendom – in this case in Australia – it has become clear by now that a red line has been crossed followed by a clear sign that the cup is full.

          Better to implement a wise solution before real clashes will eventuate.

          The usual strategy of deterring and intimidating aimed to paralyze the Western reaction… has simply reached its end.

          The recent events in Australia in the public square have clearly indicated that the time to reverse the unilateral penetration with eminent and ordinary Trojan horses – even via further immigration – has started… via Australia.

        2. Muslims could be refugees when they flee from attacks – either provoked or suffered by other hostile counterparts or Islamic confessions.
          In the mess taking place many arevecinomic migrants.

          I read “arevecinomic”as ‘are economic’ migrants. Some may be economic migrants, but more than anything they are missionary bandits. Knowing that we are naive and clueless they appeal to compassion, fairness and ‘rights’ which were never meant to be extended to large numbers of unassimilable Mohammedans.

          My point is that whatever they are we cannot act unethically and without compassion.

          I beg to differ. Muslims are taught that they must be ‘harsh to the unbelievers and kind to other Muslims’. A refugee convention is not a suicide pact. We know that most of them, on their way to Australia, have passed through several other Muslim countries. By the law of allah they are obliged to grant them asylum, for that reason they cannot appeal to us on humanitarian grounds.To keep our society Islam free is a matter of self preservation.

    2. Like the ‘Golden Rule’, Mohammedans don’t respect any Rule of Reciprocity. Neither do they respect treaties with infidels.

      1. Bilateral relations are conceived to be factual and observable in their outcome.
        If Islam wants to believe agreements with “infedels” are not valid is not much relevant as long such agreements produce real results and effective inspection work.

      2. I suggested in above posts that the navy team should be in partnership [under U.N. flag] with the country of first and direct destination [for the migrants/refugees].

        For Australia it means NO PARTECIPATION IN ANY RESCUE OPERATION, unless a crisis takes place in the Southern Asia.

        A direct trip from areas of crisis by sea to reach Australia is extremely unlikely unless the criminal trade doesn’t upgrade the quality and the size of the vessel.

        There is no chance to know the cultural identity and the real status of a refugee/migrant prior classification, which is unrealistic to take place before rescue and care.

        Once done, I can see why Muslims should be redirected by the U.N. to suitable destinations where they will feel at home and share the same dreambof the Caliphate, the Sharia, Halal… without feeling compelled by their religion to change their new country by the duty of Dawah and Jihad – at whatever the level and stage of “Meccan or Medinian Islam”.

        Many in the West have clearly understood the strategy of Islam, as it is also clear that the bulk o f”moderate Muslims” can “relax” until the Caliph ir /the Mahdi comes/come.

        By reason and common sense it is clear that everybody should live where the terms of coexistance are better successful.

        The constitutional core of the West is that “theocracy” must be left in the Middle Age for the sake of the best possible coexistance.

        Christians have accept such a rule, based on the Scriptural evidence that God has appointed a time of Grace vfir all people and nations.

        The biblical objective of theocracy is fully alive, but the methodology is not the same of Islam, as it is clear inbtge “Prophets” and Jesus’ teaching itself that the “Kingdom – Malkuth” comes with human hand (see the book of Daniel) and therefore any violent holy war, imposition, beheafing, pro-capita dhimmi tax or Jihad.

        This is also the reason why historically the Pilgrim Fathers are at the foundation of modern democracy, while reformer like Al-Sisi finds extremely hard – likely impossible – to reform Islam band “vaccinate” the Ummah from radicalism and inevitable fundamentalist interpretation.

        While Christian fundamentalism leads to the Sermon on the Mount, the Islamic equivalent leads to the Orthodox records of 14 centuries of Islam and their authoritative sources, which graphic memory has been likewise fully restored to the Western memory – e.g. I was born near Otranto and now I have a graphic idea of what happened to my ancestors there and by which former “orthodox model”.

        I know that Australia gas reached the apex… and that’s why I am concerned that rational and ethical solutions will be agreed before civility and compassion will suffer a disatroys damage, which I cannot accept and sympatise with as a Christian.

  4. Opposing Islam in anyway is a justifiable cause for Jihad.

    I hope the Australian government is aware of this.

    1. DP111 – could you please explain further and unequivocally? Are informing or warning the AUSSIE government?

Comments are closed.