The important role the Muslim community plays in helping counter religious extremism and potential terrorist acts is only rarely acknowledged by the authorities and the media.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It is almost a decade since the then attorney-general, George Brandis, spelt this out in response to terrorist attacks orchestrated by Islamic State in Paris: "The fact that a very small minority of fanatics defy the teachings of the Islamic religion by engaging in terrorist crime, whether overseas or, as we have seen on three instances now in the last year, in Australia, should not reflect upon the Muslim community," he said.
"The worst thing we could do is to alienate the Muslim community. They are our fellow citizens and they are our necessary partners in combating this menace."
The then prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, also said the Muslim community was "our absolutely necessary partner in the battle against violent extremism".
What is disappointing in view of this obvious truth is that members of the Muslim community say they had been ignored in the lead-up to the arrest of five teenagers for alleged terrorist offences on Wednesday.
Lebanese Muslim Association secretary Ghamel Kheir said the police operation - which involved more than 400 officers - was "heavy handed". He also criticised the description of those arrested as "religiously motivated" - the term used by ASIO and other agencies since 2021 to replace phrases such as "Islamic extremism".
"We don't investigate people because of their religious views ... but that's not always clear when we use the term Islamic extremism," ASIO boss Mike Burgess said at the time.
"We went from a scenario one week ago where we were clearly told there was a lone wolf," Mr Keir said after the latest arrests.
"[They] are now portraying it as a terrorist cell ... why aren't we kept abreast of these things. If the police want us to support and help them then we, as a community, need to know".
Mr Keir has a point, particularly given the ages of those taken into custody which range from 14 to 17.
While, as recent events have shown, radicalised teens can certainly pose a serious threat, their age, immaturity and vulnerability to evil actors on the internet must be taken into account.
That was made apparent in March when it was reported police had "fed" a 13-year-old autistic boy's fixation with Islamic state and "doomed" his attempts at rehabilitation.
AFP deputy commissioner Ian McCartney had authorised a "major controlled operation" that led to the boy's arrest soon after his 14th birthday. That was six months after the parents had asked police to help them deal with the teen's ISIS fixation.
When the matter made it to court, Magistrate Lesley Fleming was highly critical: "The community would not expect law enforcement officers to encourage a 13 to 14-year-old child towards racial hatred, distrust of police and violent extremism," he said before granting a permanent stay on terror-related charges.
Mr Burgess subsequently acknowledged dealing with minors was "incredibly difficult". He said: "We do not radicalise people. We investigate threats to security."
Following Wednesday's arrests there is a clear onus on the authorities to put the emphasis on education and rehabilitation. That will require the active assistance of members of the Muslim community.
This case is also further proof the social media barons must be much more pro-active in banning hate preachers and violent ideologues from their platforms. That is the only way to reduce the risk impressionable juveniles will be radicalised.
