For example, the white paper states of violent jihadism: “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.”
Honest analysis, but too timid solution
Andrew Bolt
Greg Sheridan says Kevin Rudd’s new white paper on counter terrorism is much better than its many critics claim:
For example, have you heard Hezbollah terror groups are operating in Australia? It’s in the white paper, but not the media.
Have you heard the government has declared the level of terror threat a society faces depends on the size and composition of its Muslim minority? It’s in the white paper but not the media….
For example, the white paper states of violent jihadism: “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.”
This is a statement of the obvious but it is normally not allowed to be said. It begs the question: is it necessary for a liberal Western society to encourage immigration from predominantly Muslim countries with histories of significant minority support for extremism, when it is obvious such immigration will lead to big problems?
So far I’m with Sheridan. But I can’t quite buy his defence to the most obvious criticism – that a paper which announces the real threat now comes from within the Muslim community in Australia prompts measures almost entirely aimed at stopping boat people and visiting jihadists instead.
First, Sheridan caricatures the argument, and draws a false analogy with a country facing a far bigger and more entrenched Muslim minority, drawn from a more radicalised part of the globe, and brought into a country without our strong immigrant tradition:
Two chief lines of criticism of the government have emerged. One is that because the white paper and Kevin Rudd’s remarks concentrate on the growing home-grown terror threat, he should have announced millions of dollars for domestic counter-radicalisation programs, as is done in Britain. This would be a catastrophe… Britain’s anti-radicalisation program is a cross between a fiasco and a disaster. It has empowered extremists, defined extremely conservative Islam as mainstream and demoralised moderates.
And he draws also a false distinction between Australia’s society and Britain’s in suggesting an alternative solution:
The best counter-radicalisation program is a good, open decent society. Our settlement model is infinitely better than Britain’s.
