This gubberment’s hair-raising approach to dealing with Islamic terrorism is of more concern than Islamic terrorism itself.
Anthony Albanese will stare down a push by a national security watchdog to scrap religion as a motive for terrorism in federal law, risking a backlash from Muslim leaders in Labor’s western Sydney heartland.
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Jake Blight is expected to recommend “violent religious extremism” be covered by a broader category of “ideology” in the Criminal Code’s definition of terrorism in a report to be tabled on November 20, weeks before the first anniversary of the Bondi massacre.
Intelligence and security agencies have lobbied against the change, arguing it could make it harder for investigators to access special counter-terrorism powers and secure prosecutions, while obscuring the threat posed by Islamist extremists.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, who received Mr Blight’s report last month, will not respond immediately, but has signalled the government will not back the proposed amendment.
“To be clear: the government does not support any narrowing of the definition of terrorism,” Ms Rowland’s spokesman said.
He said Mr Blight’s review was an “own-motion” inquiry, rather than one commissioned by the government.
That’s BS. All of this is bought & paid for by the much maligned taxpayers.
Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said the Coalition would also reject any change “that waters down the definition of terrorism”.
“You can’t defeat a threat you refuse to name, and you certainly can’t defeat it by writing it out of the Criminal Code,” Senator Cash said.
Eliminating religion from the definition of terrorism would be politically explosive, given the Bondi gunmen Sajid and Naveed Akram were allegedly inspired by Islamic State.
New AFP data shows religiously motivated extremism remains the nation’s biggest terrorist threat, accounting for 58 per cent of people charged with terrorism offences since 2020.
About 30 per cent were driven by nationalist, racist and other ideologies, with the balance having mixed ideologies or unclear motivations.
Mr Blight, whose three-year term ends on November 25, said ahead of public hearings in March that the terrorism definition needed updating to “deal equally” with jihadists and the growing threat of nationalist and racist violent extremism.
Again, that is a smokescreen to blame people who do not engage in terror, but who resist Islamisation of this country and the treachery of its political class.
He told The Australian on Wednesday that those inspired by Islamic State and similar groups remained “a real threat”.
Wow, what a relief!
“No one suggested otherwise during this review,” Mr Blight said. “They absolutely should and will remain covered by terrorism offences.”
Just don’t call them jihadists then?
He said his report reflected more than a year of consultation, including multiple meetings with federal, state and territory police and other agencies, and he expected it would “take some time for government to properly consider the report and respond”.
I won’t hold my breath.
Labor’s position is set to inflame tensions with Muslim community leaders in western Sydney seats where the party suffered big swings at last year’s federal election.
Oh noes! Can’t make the Muslims angry!
Muslim Votes Matter co-founder Ghaith Krayem, whose group backed candidates against top cabinet ministers, said: “This definition and the whole approach to national security is certainly something we will look at when it comes to the next election.”
They gave them the vote and now they have them by the balls.
The Prime Minister’s hand-picked Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, Aftab Malik, has backed the proposed change – a view reiterated by his office on Wednesday.
Of course he has. Aftak Malik is a Mohammedan.
“Removing religion as a motivating factor from the definition of a terrorist act is not about denying the reality of terrorist groups such as ISIS or diminishing the harm they cause,” Mr Malik;’s office said in a statement.
Can’t condemn a Muslim brother for waging jihad, right? Right Malik?
“Rather, it is about ensuring that terrorism is defined by violent conduct and extremist ideology, not by religious identity.”
A Muslims identity is religious.
Mr Albanese’s Antisemitism Envoy Jillian Segal urged the monitor to keep religion in the definition, telling the review “law enforcement can only act on a threat they can name accurately”.
To question this is offensive.
“The definition of a terrorist act has to be precise enough to focus finite investigative resources, and flexible enough to keep pace with a threat environment that is more dynamic than ever,” Ms Segal said.
“That is why the references to political, religious and ideological causes matter. Almost 95 per cent of the sentencing decisions reviewed by the INSLM involved religion as at least one motive.”
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, whose department oversees ASIO and the AFP, represents the Lakemba-based seat of Watson, which has the nation’s largest Muslim population.
Other cabinet ministers including Education Minister Jason Clare, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen and Ms Rowland hold western Sydney electorates with sizeable Islamic-Australian voter blocs.
Mr Burke suffered a 6.11 per cent swing against him at last year’s election after Muslim Votes candidate Ziad Basyouny secured almost 15 per cent of the primary vote and a large chunk of preferences from voters who didn’t support the senior Labor minister.
The Albanese government has faced criticism over its slow response to the explosion in antisemitism following the October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel, and its delayed decision to order a royal commission into the Bondi massacre, Australia’s deadliest terrorist attack.
The government, which recognised Palestinian statehood late last year, has also been accused by Jewish groups and the Coalition of putting Islamophobia on the same level as antisemitism.
That’s because they did, the K*nts!
Former Department of Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo said removing religion as a motivator for terrorism “would effectively give faith leaders and teachers in the Islamic faith a leave pass to avoid the difficult discussions that need to be had, namely that adherence to Islam should not and cannot justify acts of terror”.
But it does. The believers are commanded to “strike terror in the hearts of the disbelievers” and to “strife hard” to make the world islamic.
The AFP noted in its submission to Mr Blight’s review that there were concerns that labelling a terrorist event as being religiously motivated could have an impact on people of faith not involved in acts of violence.
But it said the proposed change could make it harder to catch and prosecute terrorists.
These people are shadow boxing.
“Any unintended narrowing of the legislative definition could make it more difficult for terrorism investigators to access special counter-terrorism powers and progress successful prosecutions,” the agency said.
It sure would.
“Given the serious consequences of a successful terrorist act on the community, the AFP would be concerned about any uncertainty in this framework.”
ASIO said in its submission: “The use of the language ‘religiously motivated violent extremism’ deliberately avoids the targeting of a specific religion.
ASIO acknowledges concerns expressed regarding the religious component of terrorism related terminology and frameworks.
Dhimmi language doesn’t protect us.
An entire religion cannot, and should not, be judged because of the actions of a tiny minority.”
This line is for imbeciles. Islamic terrorism is backed by the whole ummah of believers, all two gazillion. Those who don’t participate are renegades who must be killed.
The terrorist threat level remains at “probable”, which means there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore attack or attack planning occurring in Australia within the next 12-months.
“Probable” indeed. This probability increases with every Mohammedans we import.
