The rhetoric of firmness, resolve and co-operation was gushing freely at the national meeting on Thursday convened by Malcolm Turnbull to canvass how violent extremism might be countered in Australia. Recalling this month's "shocking act of terrorism perpetrated by a 15-year-old boy", the Prime Minister said the nation would have "no tolerance" for extremism and that the Muslim community was an absolutely "necessary partner" in the fight against home-grown terrorism. Counter-terrorism coordinator Greg Moriarty told the meeting that the best way to stop incidents like the Parramatta shooting was to stop people becoming radicalised in the first place, and that "better intervention programs that prevent people becoming radicalised" were needed.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
All self-evident truths. But given AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin's plainly stated view that "the problem is getting worse for Australia, not better", can people have faith in the ability of their governments and their police and counter-terrorism forces to prevent further outrages. The answer would seem to be that it is very much to be doubted.
Social media has enabled extremist groups (the exemplar being Islamic State) to propagandise and to exhort and manipulate impressionable individuals into murdering or assassinating other people to a degree that's confounded security agencies around the world. No truly effective counter to this radicalisation technique yet exists. So other than enacting ever harsher security laws, governments have resorted to implore Muslim community leaders and religious figures to watch over the vulnerable while denouncing the philosophy and goals of IS. The weakness with this approach is that the Muslim community in Australia is not monolithic. Furthermore, there is no priesthood in Islam, and while there are religious figures who claim to represent large constituencies in Sydney or Melbourne, none commands widespread authority. Secondly, although most Muslims abhor violent extremism, there is a lingering sympathy within the community for IS's sentiments and aims. Among others, these are that the West pays insufficient respect to Muslim sensibilities, that it is corrupt, and that its continuing "interference" in the Middle East is not to be tolerated.
If the federal government ended Australia's military involvement in the Middle East, the potential for religious radicalisation would theoretically be reduced. There's no prospect of that occurring happen, however. A tougher stance by authorities against people or groups proselytising on IS's behalf or encouraging young men to enlist in its struggles might yield a similar dividend. But this too is unlikely since governments fear that it would sharpen the sense of alienation and grievance that many Muslims of Middle Eastern origin appear to harbour. Paradoxically, beefing up security and terrorism laws to counter radicalisation also runs the risk of being portrayed by Muslims as state-sanctioned bullying and victimisation.
As problematic as some of the counter-radicalisation strategies might appear, they should not be overlooked for fear of causing offence. Indeed, politicians and governments should start being more honest about the threat posed by radicalised Muslims. Calls for understanding and tolerance on the part of the wider community will quickly lose their resonance if further atrocities occur.
