"18C A LEADERSHIP DECISON", Abbott
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
More like a lack of leadership decision. And the new tranche of anti-terrorism legislation has more holes than a crumpet, but it’s a start and shows the Government has recognised the threat even if it still can’t legally identify it as a Muslim threat. It would never have passed the Senate anyway.
The trouble with a Government with a large majority is that many new Members, with likely-to-be-reversed majorities, pressure Cabinet to desist from making controversial decisions.
The onus to be placed on an accused Muslim suspect to prove his innocence is not likely to be used, and certainly not in a criminal case, which it would need to be. The judiciary would have a pink fit.
But in civil matters, Government agencies already place the onus on the accused to prove the agencies’ assessments wrong.
This applies to the ATO who will assess you as owing them a certain amount and the debt will stand unless you can successfully prove them wrong. Default judgments also apply to all councils and police who can fine you where the burden of proof of innocence rests with you, often at great expense and without hope of costs being awarded.
But in a criminal case, “guilty until proven innocent” is simply unacceptable and unviable in our Westminster system of justice. It’s surprising Senator Brandis even considered it.
Declaring a home-grown Muslim to have been radicalised in a foreign theatre of war is a misconception. A home-grown Muslim has already been radicalised well before he decided to book a damned air ticket.
And where has he been radicalised? Either within his already radicalised family, within his already radicalised circle of friends or in a mosque, or within all three... and that’s where the Government’s mettle will be tested.
Mosques’ clerics are serial offenders at inciting terrorism and must be covertly monitored. Judges can sign a warrant to allow police forced entry to a mosque at any time where they believe an offence is being committed.
Where an offence under current legislation has been proven, the cleric must be either deported or charged and the mosque decommissioned if not indefinitely then for, say, 12 months.
A second offence and the mosque is destroyed.
Islam’s evil is devised and planned from mosques’ tentacles outward, the unemployed foot-soldiers on disability pensions are radicalised right here.
They don’t need to go to Syria to discover how to make a suicide vest... instructions that are not already on the damned internet can easily be made available to those intent on mass killing!
Communications with overseas or local terrorist cells is a simple process unless the Muslim is already on a watch list. But terrorists who attract Islamic youth know every trick in the book.
Apprehending Muslim suspects returning from overseas or even restricting travel will be pointless if a Muslim has simply bought a return ticket to Egypt and has taken a bus trip through any porous Syrian or Iraqi border post carrying a letter of approval from any “approved” terrorist.
Australian mosques are protected centres of Islamic extremism and the rapid proliferation throughout our cities and towns must stop. Group Islamic violence is committed after Friday prayers! Now, why would that be?
We should not prevent any citizen from worshipping his god of choice but when a house is designed for and used by criminals to manufacture drugs it can be declared derelict. If police discover an illegal brothel or betting shop they close it.
There is already ample legislation to cover a mosque that incites terrorism or public unrest, it’s just a matter of political will... and I doubt that will be there until after the first tragedy.
The howls of protest coming from the Left will be drowned out by a hitherto silent majority. There is a massive groundswell of support to actually name Islam for what it is and bring it to account.
It’s simply no good pussy-footing around Section 18C. The threat is an Islamic one, it is a cult that promotes the violent destruction of those who disagree with its vile edicts and it should be outlawed.
Our children are too important for it to be necessary for us to prove which snake in a writhing nest of vipers is poisonous.
The bullet should be bitten, Islam must be named as the dangerous cult it is and its followers as potential public threats, as other nations have done, and damned well deal with it before what is otherwise certain to happen happens.
Isn’t that the role of government, if not of opposition?