[anarchist23]

Out of 400,000 Australian Muslims, 110 are known to have joined ISIL. And yet, despite this minuscule ratio, Muslims and their faith are being held to account, clearly framed as the enemy in the "war on terror".

In 2011, then opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, sought to persuade the shadow cabinet to take advantage of what were perceived to be increasing concerns among the general public about Australian Muslims. That there was opposition by some members of the shadow cabinet to the suggestion is neither here nor there. The fact is that since coming to office, Prime Minister Tony Abbott's government has used Australian Muslims as political tools to divert attention from its fledgling and uninspiring leadership.

Yesterday's national security statement by the prime minister was no exception.

The message was unequivocal and unapologetic. The rhetoric, totalising and dehumanising. Australian Muslims were invested with meanings that positioned them as the antagonists of "Australian values", as exploitative, duplicitous and problematic "guests".

Unapologetic bigotry
One might say the speech was almost refreshing in its unambiguous and unapologetic bigotry. I suspect that the prime minister, like me, had grown rather tired of dog-whistle politics and euphemisms.

Some Muslims feel targeted by Australia's plans for new security laws

"Team Australia" had a nice ring to it, especially considering our pride as a sporting nation, but didn't allow Abbott to deploy the language of inferiority as a mechanism for exclusion. Instead, he had to resort to using the discourse of nation, nationalism, Australian identity (that is, Anglo-Celtic), and "core values" as a coded discussion of how this game of Dealing With Minorities works. You're either on the team or you're not. You play by our rules or you're kicked off.

Frustrated that not only had the Muslim community not accepted his message, but in fact had dared to express outrage at being made to feel, yet again, outsiders in their own country, Abbott clearly needed to reassess his strategy. Just how would he make the point that a key feature of the racist imaginaries of his government was the idea that Muslims were guests, and that a benevolent Anglo majority host suffered the pedagogical task of managing and schooling them?

From entertaining the idea of placing women who wear face veils into glassed-off areas in the public galleries at Parliament House; to Abbott calling the Mufti of Australia "wrong-headed and unhelpful" for speaking out against a possible ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir; to labelling Muslim organisations "foolish" and "petty" for boycotting a meeting with him after taking offence over his "Team Australia" rhetoric; to his continuous pontificating about the loyalties of "migrants" - the portrayal and positioning of Australian Muslims under this government has been framed in the discourse and policies of "us" and "them". It has deliberately built on and reinforced a long-manufactured climate of fear and framing of Muslims as "Other".

Demonise and alienate
It seems, however, that for Tony Abbott, the rhetoric has not been strong enough. Which is why, with yesterday's security statement, the prime minister abandoned all sense of proportionality, fairness and wise leadership, and opted to demonise and alienate the Muslim community in rather frank terms.

I've often heard western leaders describe Islam as a religion of peace. I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often, and mean it.

Muslim community leaders were exhorted, yet again, to "speak up clearly" against terror, the clear implication being that they had either been silent or ambiguous in their response to terrorist attacks committed by Muslims.

The statement was bewildering given the countless fatwas and statements and press releases and sermons and community projects that have clearly and unequivocally denounced terror in the name of Islam. One wonders what is the magical number?

The reality is, there is none because it is the power to demand condemnation that reveals the contempt with which Abbott and his government view Muslims. Implicit in the demand to condemn is the notion that Muslims somehow need to be reminded that the taking of innocent life is a crime.

Indeed, the prime minister drove the point home when he went on to declare: "I've often heard western leaders describe Islam as a religion of peace. I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often, and mean it."

Complicit in the 'death cult'
The result was that the prime minister of Australia acted to firmly entrench in the national psyche not only that Australian Muslims are not to be trusted, but that Islam and Muslims are complicit in the "death-cult" ISIL. Notice too that it is "western leaders" who Abbott refers to as describing Islam as a religion of peace. That Abbott rebukes Muslim leaders for not describing Islam thus makes his meaning clear: Western leaders are foolish and misinformed to view Islam in this way given even Muslims don't go so far as to describe Islam as a religion of peace.

Out of 400,000 Australian Muslims, 110 are known to have joined ISIL. And yet, despite this minuscule ratio, Muslims and their faith are being held to account, clearly framed as the enemy in the "war on terror".

Abbott's opinion of Islam and Muslims was laid bare yesterday. Revealing the contempt with which he holds both makes it very clear that relations between this government and the Muslim community have been irreparably damaged.

http://aje.io/gm7v

[Godstud]

Some Muslims feel targeted by Australia's plans for new security laws

It's justified. There's a whole other thread on this very thing(creating a law to penalize people going to fight for ISIL). Everyone seems to think it's aimed at Muslims, when it's not. It's aimed at criminals.

Abbot's speaking the truth. It's not what the whiney liberals want to hear, though. Action, not words, is what is needed from the moderate side of Islam. We've seen nothing to indicate that they really want to end ISIL. There's also far too much support for ISIL for us to believe what the rest say.

[pugsville]

Abbot is firmly playing the race/national security card in order to prop up his doomed primeminstership. It's a low act. Really he just aleinated muslims for no practical purpose. I don't think the Prime Minister should be revealing evidence against accused in parliament. I don't think the armed forces and police should be appearing in joint press conferences, the politicisation of the armed forces, national security and the police does not help.

Yes Muslim extremists should be looked at and there is a possible threat the needs the attention of the relevant authorities. But this isn't helping.'

[GandalfTheGrey]

Abbot is firmly playing the race/national security card in order to prop up his doomed primeminstership. It's a low act. Really he just aleinated muslims for no practical purpose.

Yes and notice how on the very same day Julie Bishop, no doubt in damage control, came out and publicly contradicted him - noting how invaluable the muslim community has been in helping authorities combat the threat. Which was actually just echoing what the former ASIO chief said in his valedictory speech last year.

[Rich]

Yes and notice how on the very same day Julie Bishop, no doubt in damage control, came out and publicly contradicted him - noting how invaluable the muslim community has been in helping authorities combat the threat. Which was actually just echoing what the former ASIO chief said in his valedictory speech last year.

I notice how we're expected to be grateful if ever a few Muslims help to clear up their religion's own mess. Its really quite simple. For much of Eurasia and North Africa, no Muslims no problem. For this area Islam is undoubtedly the number one block to democracy, prosperity and tolerance.

[Ideational Ontarian]

Out of 400,000 Australian Muslims, 110 are known to have joined ISIL.

How many more support these 110 with donations to facilitate their Jihad? How many donate to Islamic charities that help support the families of dead Jihadists (so that ISIS doesn't have to)? How many more give them religious and/or moral support?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding that Muslims do more to root out the extremists in their midst.

[Pants-of-dog]

It seems a bit much to demand that the Muslims stabilise a region that Western forces continually destabilise with military involvement.

We attack them, then we get mad at the non-violent ones for not stopping the violent ones from retaliating.

[layman]

Muslims such as Kurds, Jordan etc are already fighting IS.

The reason they dont do more is because its easier (and cheaper) to let the Americans do it. If America was to leave the middle east entirely then the countries there would have to up their game.

Same with Sadam in 91. If America had not been there, a coalition would have formed to fight him all the same.

Of course expecting generic "muslims" to fix the problem is moronic. You need actual groups with structure to achieve such things.

[anarchist23]

Abbott’s proposed laws would have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with further silencing dissent.

After narrowly surviving a leadership spill on the first day of parliament for 2015, Tony Abbott reached for one of his most trusted political cards: racist fear-mongering in the name of the war on terror.

Abbott had been briefed by senior ASIO and AFP officers about arrests made during another paramilitary style “anti-terror” raid in Western Sydney.

As lawyer Adam Houda, who has represented a number of people arrested in similar raids, told the ABC, “is it co-incidental that whenever the Prime Minister is in the shit, his mates find him a terrorist?”

Abbott launched an attack on the arrested men in parliament, saying, “I don’t think it would be possible to witness uglier fanaticism than this”. He quoted from a video allegedly showing one of the men pledging to kill people in Australia on behalf of Islamic State (IS).

A number of senior barristers condemned the move as prejudicing the men’s trial.

When more than 800 police raided Muslim households across Sydney last November, Abbott peddled a fantasy story about an imminent IS beheading in Martin Place. Recent court proceedings following these raids have completely discredited the sensationalist allegations peddled by Abbott and other politicians at the time of the “terror” raids.

In reality, more than a dozen of those arrested, many of them minors, were released without charge. One man was charged with firearms offences that had no connection to terrorism.

Lawyers for the one man charged with terrorism offences (on the basis of a single phone call from a contact in Iraq) argue their client is innocent and that there has been a grave mistranslation of the Arabic used during the call.

Similarly, Omar Amrouche, arrested at gunpoint in Greenacre in further raids in January, was never charged with terrorism offences, but “acquiring and possessing ammunition”, and was released on bail.

The one incident that Abbott has been able to milk was the December siege of the Lindt cafe in Sydney, where one hostage was shot by gunman Man Haron Monis and another by police. Yet Monis was a mentally unstable individual with no connection to any terrorist organisation. A recent inquiry has confirmed that no attempts were ever made to negotiate with Monis and offers from Muslim leaders to reason with him during the siege were rebuffed.

The real story of these raids is the abuse of power by police and intelligence agencies to terrorise the Muslim community. Abbott already passed draconian legislation in 2014 beefing up policing powers. Floundering in the polls and under attack from his own party, he has decided to use the national security card to boost his ratings.

Already, these laws can be used to persecute supporters of national liberation struggles, such as the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) or Hamas and Hizbollah. Abbott used a Press Club speech in the midst of his leadership crisis to call for further laws to “tackle the people and organisations that justify terrorism”.

Abbott singled out Hizb ut-Tahrir, an international group with a small presence in Australia, who advocate for a political system based on Islamic Law.

But Hizb ut-Tahrir is actually an enemy of IS and say political change should come through peaceful means. Their worst crime has been to oppose Islamophobia and oppose Australian involvement in Western imperialist adventures in the Middle East.

Abbott’s proposed laws would have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with further silencing dissent.

Disgracefully, asylum seekers have also been further scapegoated in the anti-terror push. Just as he did with the Lindt siege, Abbott tried to link the recent arrests with boat people, although neither of the men involved had arrived by boat.

Not a single terror suspect has come to Australia by boat, yet Abbott took to radio to further demonise people already locked up in horrific conditions, arguing recent raids prove, “why we have to stop the boats…these people have been given the benefit of the doubt for too long”.

Abbott is also trying to wedge the Labor Party into supporting his controversial meta-data retention regime, saying it is necessary to combat terrorism.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam has been campaigning hard against the legislation, which would see a record of every person’s internet usage stored for a minimum of two years—a regime of “indiscriminate mass surveillance” unprecedented in Australia.

Abbott is only interested in his own political security. We need to stand against Abbott’s metadata legislation, his anti-Muslim fearmongering and his scapegoating of Hizb ut-Tahrir every bit as much as we oppose his attacks on Medicare, students and unions.

By Paddy Gibson.

[QatzelOk]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding that Muslims do more to root out the extremists in their midst.

Would it be possible to demand the same thing of European Jews?

It's my understanding that Jews are prohibited from criticizing other Jews publicly. Why should Muslims (or anyone else) strive for any other standard when it appears to have worked so well historically for so many wealthy mafias?

If you're getting rich by remaining loyal to your gang, why in the world should you squeal?

(Sheltering your gang by not revealing their sins is called Omerta, which is Italian, and not Arabic)

[Ideational Ontarian]

Would it be possible to demand the same thing of European Jews?

It's my understanding that Jews are prohibited from criticizing other Jews publicly. Why should Muslims (or anyone else) strive for any other standard when it appears to have worked so well historically for so many wealthy mafias?

If you're getting rich by remaining loyal to your gang, why in the world should you squeal?

(Sheltering your gang by not revealing their sins is called Omerta, which is Italian, and not Arabic)

Omerta is not something to be proud of. Anyway no one is talking about Sicilian Mafia.

[Salohcin]

Honestly I think the Islamic state (IS) changed the whole equation.

Now it is not just a case of racists picking on Muslims because they are the flavour of the month scary thing. (Though this still happens)

Now the IS is actively trying to convince Muslims (alienated by racism) to go postal. This changes the situation completely. It is now relatively likely that another terrorist act will occur within Australia in the next year or 2. That said I still rate lightning strike as a more likely risk to my life personally.

[JRS1]

It seems a bit much to demand that the Muslims stabilise a region that Western forces continually destabilise with military involvement.

We attack them, then we get mad at the non-violent ones for not stopping the violent ones from retaliating.

Yep. You cant keep slapping people in the face and expecting nothing back in return.

Sooner or later they will do enough damage to make us think twice. Or we can be can be preemptive and reign ourselves back in. Which political parties are offering peace btw, I think they could capitalise on it.