Labor, Greens prove themselves to be slaves to terrorists

LABOR, Greens and what passes for leadership in Australia’s Muslim community are united in opposition to a new suite of anti-terrorism laws proposed by the federal government to deal with the threat posed by jihadists returning from foreign conflicts. The Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohammed has called on “all fair-minded Australians” to support a Muslim-driven campaign against the draft laws. The ubiquitous Keysar Trad from the Sydney-based Lebanese Muslim Association has called the federal government’s plans to beef up terror laws ­“deplorable” and “divisive”. The Greens and Labor, which are both also trying to curry favour with the Muslim community and woo their inner-urban constituents, have expressed their opposition to the suggested changes. The Greens could never be relied upon to put matters of national security foremost. Labor, however, has supporters in mainstream Australia who would be dismayed to learn their party’s leadership has now committed itself to the elitist view that national security is part of a conservative conspiracy, and that the party’s political interests are better served pandering to minority ethnic communities. Moreover, the proposed changes — particularly those relating to the retention of metadata records — are not dissimilar to plans circulated by the former Labor attorney-­general Nicola Roxon two years ago. \On Friday, the director-­general of ASIO David Irvine and the deputy commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Andrew Colvin tried to address some of the misinformation the ABC and Fairfax media have been promulgating. The principal points Irvine made was that though the current terrorism threat level is “medium”, that is, a terrorist ­attack is likely and could occur, there is increased concern that there could be multiple attacks in “a dozen different places”. With as many as 150 Australian-born jihadists fighting in Syria and elsewhere with murderous terrorist organisations, he did not need to expand on the nature of the threat. Both men stressed that the changes they sought from the government were necessary, in line with international security requirements, and essential to meet the changing communications technologies. They were, said Irvine, an “absolutely crucial tool to protect Australia and Australians”. Colvin used the identification and capture of ABC staffer Jill Meagher’s killer as an example of the use of metadata to illustrate the need to ­access stored communications information. Without accessing the metadata, he said police “would not have solved the crime as quickly as we did”. With evil braggarts including convicted terrorist Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elo-mar, who was pictured holding the severed heads of Syrian government soldiers, threatening to enact the same sort of horrific crimes in Australia, the need to give the security authorities the assistance they seek is obvious. But they both also stressed that such material was also valuable in eliminating suspects from suspicion. Which leaves the civil liberty argument and the discrimination argument mounted by the Muslims, Labor and the Greens looking pathetic. The proposals do not represent an expansion of powers, rather they are designed to ­ensure that the data currently available remains available. With evil braggarts including convicted terrorist Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elo-mar, who was pictured holding the severed heads of Syrian government soldiers, threatening to enact the same sort of horrific crimes in Australia, the need to give the security authorities the assistance they seek is obvious. Labor and the Greens can suffer whatever electoral backlash occurs when one of the nut jobs breaches the security barrier, and there have been a number of horrendous attacks thwarted through good intelligence and policing. The Muslim community, which is by no means homogeneous, must at some time confront the core differences between ­Islamic philosophy and Western ­culture. Those who support a global caliphate, the goal of many of the jihadists, have no place in Australia. Their ideology is ­obviously at odds with the goals of a liberal democracy. For too long our liberalism has meant that we have been excessively tolerant of the ­intolerant. Nor should the ongoing Gaza situation influence Australian Muslims. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, it is proscribed by our laws, its supporters are just as opposed to the values of our ­nation as they are dedicated to the murder of every Jew and the extinction of Israel. As the Hamas constitution, or charter — never rescinded nor amended since it was first published in 1988 — says: ­“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Hamas defines its struggle as “against the Jews,” who are “smitten with vileness wheresoever they are found”. If our security agencies need the tools to deal with those who foster such sentiment and support terrorism, they should have them.