Numan Haider defenders proven to be nothing but keyboard critics

Numan Haider, who was shot and killed after stabbing two counter-terrorism officers in 2014.

After stabbing the Australian Federal Police counter-terrorism officer in the head and chest, Ahmad Numan Haider, 18, crouched over the fallen man and prepared to thrust the knife in his stomach. At that moment a Victoria police officer, who the young jihadist had also stabbed, drew his firearm and killed Haider with a single shot to the head.

Two days before his death in a car park adjacent to Endeavour Hills police station on 23 September 2014, Haider accessed Islamic State videos with graphic instructions on how to kill and maim nonbelievers. The Afghan-born refugee had also frequented Melbourne’s Al-Furqan Centre, known for its extremist views and its association with an ISIS recruiter, Neil Prakash. Haider first attracted the attention of ASIO officers in June 2014. They visited him and his father the following month and advised Haider not to associate with extremists.

You might think in such circumstances people would give the hospitalised police a break and let the coronial inquiry takes its course, but sadly you would be wrong. In the aftermath of a police shooting comes the phenomenon of shooting off one’s mouth. These keyboard critics, despite knowing only scant details of the incident and without realising the irony of their actions, accuse the police of acting prematurely and recklessly. If the deceased is of the minority-of-the-moment category, you can guarantee an additional increase in outrage virtue.

There is a splendid word for such people — the ultracrepidarians, those who hold strident views on subjects they know absolutely nothing about.

.@dizwah7

I think:
- why was there a “meeting” in a car park?
- why did they kid have no lawyer?
- why had ASIO been harassing a teenager?

— Van Badham (@vanbadham) September 24, 2014

“Why was there a ‘meeting’ in a carpark?” tweeted Guardian columnist and social commentator Van Badham the day after the shooting. “Why did they (sic) kid have no lawyer? Why had ASIO been harassing a teenager?”

But why did Haider bring a knife to the meeting, asked one of her followers. Did this not indicate the stabbing was premeditated? “You’ve clearly never been harassed by spooks,” responded Badham, who according to her Wiki profile is a writer of drama and comedy.

“Everyone feels sorry for him [Haider] and even people in my community talk about it a lot,” said Afghan community activist Mohammad Ali Baqiri. “They say there were ... two police officers, and they say he’s only got a knife, so why shoot him in the head?”

“It’s definitely put back the relationship between police and young boys living out in that area,” said Kuranda Seyit, secretary of the Islamic Council of Victoria. Presumably then the council intends teaching young Muslim men not to stab police officers? “I think the police have to do a lot more to improve that relationship,” he said, seemingly forgetting who first attacked whom.

“When Haider met the police, regardless of whether it was in the police station or in the park (sic),” said Sean Brocklehurst of Socialist Alliance, “he was technically under custody and ... the police had a duty of care for him.” Never mind the fact that Haider was not arrested. He had agreed to attend the meeting with police, the purpose of which was largely to assess his demeanour. “Even if the police version is true, why wasn’t everything done to prevent the loss of someone’s life?” To which one might ask Brocklehurst, when was the last time Socialist Alliance took to the streets to condemn the killing of a police officer?

An editorial from the left-leaning ‘magazine’ New Matilda complained that the police media release following the shooting was “seemingly designed to project a less than favourable image of Mr Haider.” Perhaps they would prefer ‘Police shoot religion-of-peace activist; coroner to investigate possible Islamophobia’? “Everything suggests that Haider was highly emotional and unstable due to the police pressure he was under,” proclaimed the news website World Socialist.

.@QandA 18 year old Abdul Numan Haider was NOT a terrorist. He is a dead victim of police fatally shot in the head, mths of harassment prior

— Hanan Dover (@HananDover1) November 21, 2014

“Numan Haider was NOT a terrorist,” declared Muslim clinical and forensic psychologist Hanan Dover in November 2014. “He is a dead victim of police fatally shot in the head, mths of harassment prior.” In April 2015 she tweeted “7 mths since Numan Haider shot dead by police. No coronial inquest. Martin Pl siege inquest completed within 6 weeks. Cover-up?” Perhaps this psychologist should try lying on the practice couch.

7 mths since Numan Haider shot dead by police. No coronial inquest. Martin Pl siege inquest completed within 6 weeks. Cover-up? #auspol

— Hanan Dover (@HananDover1) April 22, 2015

What a let-down it must have been this week for conspiracy theorists and defenders-of-the-wretched alike when coroner John Olle released his findings. “I do not consider there is any reasonable basis to criticise the decision to meet Numan [Haider] at the Endeavour Hills Police Station,” he said. The police officers’ plan was a “soft non-confrontational approach [that] was not unreasonable on the basis of the information they had.” As for Badham’s sinister take on the car park being the venue for the approach, it was Haider who had insisted on meeting the officers outside the station.

The coroner found it would not have been feasible for either police officer to use nonlethal options, and they “cannot be criticised for the way in which they responded once [Haider] produced the knife.” Olle further found “In the months prior to his death Numan had settled on a course to fight overseas. He had been radicalised.”

“I praise both their courage and dedication,” said Olle of the two police. So should we. Police officers, after graduating, earn a base wage of around $60,000 for protecting the community, irrespective of the danger. Just to put that in perspective, Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane of the Australian Human Rights Commission is paid $339,460 to protect us against the evils of so-called hate speech. On a bad day police could be either injured or killed. Conversely, Soutphommasane has a bad day when a flight attendant shows disrespect in not attempting to pronounce his name.

“The level of vitriol inspired by such attempts to vilify me both professionally and personally has exceeded my tolerance,” wrote Dover in 2016 in response to an unrelated article in The Australian. If she is true to her principles, we can expect an unconditional apology for her unfounded vitriol and vilification of the police concerned. Ditto Badham, who said the treatment of Haider was “systemic harassment by the secret service (sic).”

@Pragmaticaust @susan_sherwood you just ignored the systemic harassment by the secret service bit, then?

— Van Badham (@vanbadham) September 24, 2014

Not surprisingly, these two opinionista sisters are feted by progressives. Dover has written for the ABC’s Religion and Ethics program, while Badham appears regularly on The Drum and Q&A. What better place than the national broadcaster to air the many grievances, no matter how ridiculous, of identity politics when there is little chance they will be challenged? That they shoot off their mouth is something we are resigned to, but is there any chance they could be fitted with a silencer?