This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.
On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.
Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.
On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.
These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.
Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.
These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.
As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.
To panic people.
To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.
An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?
Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?
Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.
The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.
This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.
Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.
Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.
An inhuman, uncivilised society.
Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.
The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.
They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.
And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.
They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.
They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.
And cruelly treats its own citizens.
Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?
You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.
What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.
It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.
As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’
I look around and think how far the left have fallen.
This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.
It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.
The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.
This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.
If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.
We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.
This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.
I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.
After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.
This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.
It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.
As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.
And yet we do NOT use those laws.
Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?
We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?
If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?
It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.
Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.
They called it ‘a stunt’.
They being the hypocritical globalists in the Senate, the media mouthpieces waiting at the doors, and the predatory activists desperate for something to be outraged about.
The stunt being Senator Pauline Hanson’s decision to wear a burqa in the Chamber, which has brought the suffocation of our democracy to the public’s attention.
Since being delivered a majority – despite the lowest primary vote in history – Labor has made little effort to maintain Parliament’s veneer of debate.
Their deals with the Greens have allowed Bills to be rushed into law. Dissent is silenced by shuffling One Nation speakers to the bottom of the list and then cutting the speeches right before One Nation were about to speak – as happened to us on the controversial Environmental Protection and Reform Bill. Inquisitions are being staged where ‘concern for truth and safety’ are brandished as a way to enforce censorship.
Rapidly, Parliament has devolved into a protection racket for the worst policy imaginable.
When democracy is denied, ‘stunts’ become the best way to signal the alarm.
Big state politics thrives on bureaucracy. Its defenders pretend their air of ‘superiority’ and ‘maturity’ equals sensible policy when – really – they are performing the same role as a million pages of bureaucratic bullshit holding down the truth.
Boredom, bureaucracy, and silence. That is how democracy dies.
Politics was never meant to perform with the mannerisms of a hospital coffee shop or library foyer.
The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.
When we consider political speeches that changed the world, they were not monologues in praise of moderation. They were brave. Indeed, the moment that won Donald Trump the election was when he rose from the stage, fist raised, shouting, ‘Fight! Fight! Fight!’
‘In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ – George Orwell
‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.
When a Muslim woman is forced – either by her family, society, or self-imposed culture – to cover herself in a piece of black a cloth banned in over 20 countries, she is invisible.
When a Western woman with red hair and a knee-length dress does the same, the oppression is instantly visible. It is uncomfortable. We see ourselves – the West – treading the edge of religious oppression.
Wearing the burqa in the Senate was an act of truth-telling.
‘Truth’ that lends weight to the lie that Islam is a purely neutral force in the West.
Like most religions, it has extreme edges. This intense variation of Islam is the largest perpetrator of global terror. It runs slave trades in its conquered provinces where Yazidi women are kept as prisoners. It subverts the political systems of its host country, running parallel Sharia court systems and strong – unwritten – cultural laws that run contrary to the accepted customs of the local population. It marries little girls to old men overseas (who they are often related to). It compels relatives to murder young women who fall in love with the wrong man under the false banner of ‘honour’. And it denies the hard-earned rights of women in the West to autonomy by enforcing a type of garment used to subjugate women.
This is what Australians thought about when black robes concealed one of the most recognisable faces in Australian politics.
The Senate refused the debate and threw Pauline Hanson out with screams of ‘racism’ because no one standing opposite could begin a debate – let alone win one.
Forgotten by the press is that this bill was also about security.
It was about banning a range of face coverings – not just the burqa. It included Antifa rioters concealing their identity, balaclavas which have become a symbol of fear on the streets of Melbourne, and those who hide their face while burning the Australian flag. If the debate had been allowed, the public would have seen that this bill was bigger than burqa.
When Pauline Hanson made a similar point in 2017, politicians controlled the press.
They were perfectly capable of fabricating outrage by reprinting copies of the same header over every broadsheet. There was a consensus within the Establishment. A pact to protect ‘multiculturalism’ over the far more sensible policy of assimilation.
Social media existed, however it was owned wall-to-wall by Democrat-leaning Silicon Valley entities and sometimes part-owned by Saudi figures.
Today, things are different. Elon Musk’s purchase of X might not be perfect, but its alignment with free speech principles has allowed the people of Australia to have a say on the burqa.
To the media’s shock, they agree with Pauline Hanson.
They probably agreed with her the first time too.
Not only did Australians agree, they were furious at the behaviour of the Senate for first stifling debate and then throwing Senator Hanson out.
Even conservative members of the Liberal and National parties – no doubt believing their own press from 2017 – were caught off guard when voters criticised them for censuring Senator Hanson.
A note to the Liberals: you cannot praise Scott Morrison for his coal stunt and then condemn Senator Hanson. Nor is it advisable to follow up the next day with a stunt of your own, waving bits of paper behind Sussan Ley to mock Labor for their power prices.
As usual, it is one rule for the Lib-Lab uniparty and another for One Nation.
It is evident that ‘stunts’ themselves are not a problem – it was the topic of the burqa they feared.
Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.
We fought too hard for our culture and our values to weather this moral descent without complaint.
Young people are coming to One Nation because they see this cultural shift in the streets they walk every day. The Canberra Bubble never truly sees what’s happening to Australia except through the sanitised fantasy of outraged activists.
One Nation will not abandon the women of Australia, the people who fled here for safety, or those whose families built this nation from the ground up.
And we will not sit politely while the safety of Australians is put at risk.
Even if the Senate throws us out a thousand times, we will remain, because you elected us to serve you, not those in the Chamber.
Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/b69d5c74-8e91-4b3f-9e45-f7742d71a2bd_1494x1037.jpg?fit=1494%2C1037&ssl=110371494Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-03 18:10:072025-12-03 18:17:02Bigger than the Burqa
This is not a balanced report – it’s one-sided propaganda!
I want to share something very important with you – my response to the Islamophobia report which was commissioned by the Albanese government and produced by the Special Envoy to ‘Combat Islamophobia’ over a three-year period.
The author, Mr Malik Aftab, is a United Nations Alliance of Civilisations ‘Global Expert’ on Muslim Affairs.
For many reasons, the report is a frustrating body of work that fundamentally fails to explain why Australians may hold views critical of Islam.
The report does not acknowledge the failings of Islam to integrate with Western society. In particular, there is no discussion on Sharia Law cited by Australia’s allies as being of significant concern for the continuation of civil and human rights for women and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Australians are naturally protective of their legal progress toward making the country a world leader in rights and first-world ideals.
When a culture arrives on our shores whose core religious beliefs, or even cultural interpretation, threaten these advancements – there will be pushback to ensure that society is protected from a regression of rights.
Politicians owe minority groups and vulnerable people protection from imported ideas. After all, even the United Nations acknowledges the large gap between the human rights of the Islamic world compared to that of Australia.
We will not go backwards and undo our civil rights movements to accommodate the feelings of newly arrived migrants who made a choice to enter this beautiful country.
This, as they say, is not a negotiation.
Australia will not be commanded to re-write its moral core based upon hastily defined ‘phobias’ because of cultural disagreement.
The report also complains about the negative impact on Muslim communities due to counter terrorism laws following September 11. This is handwaving. Islam is the largest perpetrator of terror across the world. The ever-present threat of such attacks has resulted in the degradation of our freedoms and innocence of Australia. Remember a time when Christmas markets didn’t need the protection of bollards to stop cars driving into people?
It is not the fault of Australian citizens that violence is being conducted in the name of Islam by both lone wolves and well-funded groups attached to state entities such as Iran. Australians do not have a ‘phobia’ toward Sikhs, Jews, or Buddhists as would be the case if the phobia was rooted in racism. Islam is responsible for its reputation.
Look to Europe, where children are butchered and religious figures beheaded in broad daylight.
In July 2005, four Islamic terrorists attacked London resulting in the murder of 52 people. In 2017, two Islamic terrorists bombed Manchester Arena killing 22 and injuring 1,017 people – mostly teenagers. Despite being alerted to suspicious behaviour, the terrorists were not approached by security for fear of being called … racist.
Global statistics state that between 2013-24, 56,413 Islamic terror attacks have taken place – or 84.4% of all recorded terror attacks in the world. These are not insignificant facts. Yes, it matters that the latest wave of mass migration coming into Australia is originating from locations where this sort of religious violence is normalised.
We don’t want religious violence ‘normalised’ or excused as ‘resistance’ inside Australia.
Being worried about terrorism is not ‘racist’. A map of the world showing which nations are most worried about Islamic terror reveals Asia and the Middle East as hotpots. These are not ‘white majority’ areas.
The report on Islamophobia says in its forward:
‘The feeling I got from others was that Christianity was this white, wholesome religion, while Islam was something so foreign it was hard to understand. Although I knew deep down inside that was wrong.’
How bizarre. Christianity is not a white-based religion and to say so demonstrates the setting of ignorance that pervades the rest of the report.
Christianity is, however, a peaceful and reformed religion that has adapted to the modern world – driven Western Enlightenment – and led directly to the end of the global slave trade. Islam has been the most powerful slaver since before the West’s first slave ship, and there are still Islamic groups carrying out human slavery in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Australia’s government deals with state-funded Islamic terror on the geopolitical stage and its existence is naturally of concern to citizens. This isn’t helped by groups declaring themselves to be ‘humanitarian’ protesting for a cause deeply rooted in Palestinian terrorist organisations such as Hamas and the PLO. The report fails to point out the self-inflicted harm the Muslim community does to itself by calling for a ‘Global Intifada’.
Yes, people may feel a sense of concern and even fear when large groups of people call for an Intifada or hold signs supporting violent regimes.
Instead of allowing an open discussion – free from the fear of legal retribution – Western leaders are seeking to codify ‘Islamophobia’ to protect themselves from electoral backlash.
A leading British KC, who is an advisor to the Attorney General, issued a dramatic warning last week about the dangers of defining Islamophobia in law.
He was not concerned about so-called ‘discrimination’ against the Islamic community – rather, he wanted to alert the government about the inherent danger of creating a ‘fear of being called Islamophobic’ and that might interact with the legal system.
‘The conflation of the two categories of “Islam” and “Muslims” could have dangerous outcomes…’ he posed, asserting it might be used to re-write various pieces of harassment and hate crime laws.
‘Suppose that such a definition would, in practice, be relied on in objecting to the use of powers by the police and security services to investigate persons who happen to be Muslim for criminal offences, including of the most violent or sexual nature…’
We have seen this work in practice already, with a fear of being called ‘racist’ allowing the UK’s horrific network of Pakistani Muslim Grooming Gangs to operate for more than a decade with the knowledge of police and politicians.
Too many were cowered by their fear of being called ‘racist’ to save young poor white girls. Over 1,400 victims. During the investigation, council staff admitted that they had been told ‘not to mention the ethnic origins of the perpetrators’ while another report said that Rotherham police effectively ignored their duties out of fear they might ‘increase racial tensions’.
The saga demonstrates how the fear of being attached to a slur overrode the basic moral principles of law enforcement, the courts, and government leaving citizens with no protection. It also revealed the role free speech played in shaming politicians into action.
This ecosystem only works if government allows the digital realm to remain an active participant in democracy.
When a hundred thousand people march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge calling for a Global Intifada, the ethnic cleansing of Jews, and comparing Australian ‘settlers’ with illegal occupations – ordinary Australians of a mostly Christian or secular heritage have every right to feel frightened and concerned about what has happened to the fabric of society.
These days, local government doesn’t have the nerve to repair a statue of Captain Cook because they’re frightened of pro-Palestine activists. Even the Prime Minister was chased out of his office of 30 years in Marrickville.
This is frightening.
Australians are being painted as the ‘aggressor’ in this scenario, instead of the victim of the government’s ‘Big Australia’ policy which was never voted upon or consented to.
It is not Islamophobic for Australians to be concerned about child brides, forced marriage, genital mutilation, honour killings, polygamy, and acid attacks. Once unheard of in Australia, these things have appeared on our streets.
Australia’s legal system isn’t prepared for these imported crimes, nor can the media accurately report these events for fear of being pulled up with complaints. Who suffers? The next generation of Australians, often the children of migrants, who were promised safety.
Our fear is that these ‘reports on Islamophobia’ and even the report on ‘Antisemitism’ will create a sectarian framework to silence Australians and override their legitimate concerns about the future of the country they were born to and whose ancestors sacrificed everything to create.
The protection of Australia must always triumph.
My Response in Full
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Mathew 7:5
About the Author
Aftab Malik, a British-born migrant to Australia of Pakistani origin, was named as the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia for a period of three years, commencing on 14 October 2024. In this role, he produced a report on Islamophobia in Australia.
Mr Aftab Malik is a United Nations Alliance of Civilisations “Global Expert” on Muslim Affairs. He served for nearly a decade in the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, as well as the Premier’s Department, advising on community engagement, social cohesion, and countering violent extremism.
Mr Malik is a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Law at the University of Sydney, where he co-teaches an Introduction to Shariah.
Short Summary
The report praises Islam, yet fails to acknowledge any reasons why people have anti-Islamic opinions. The report fails to mention “Shariah”, despite the fact that it’s simply not possible to consider Islam’s role in Australia without talking about Shariah – especially given that the author lectured on Shariah.
This omission is secondary to the report’s primary omission, which is the absence of a definition of Islamophobia. In effect, the report is, in essence, saying “on this thing I can’t define, here are all the things I want done to prevent it”.
The report does not mention Hamas, although it defends Palestine at length and often. How can you defend Palestine without acknowledging the actions of Hamas?
In dismissing anti-Islam sentiment as Islamophobia, the report fails to take any responsibility for the horrors committed in the name of Islam.
This is not a balanced report – it’s one-sided propaganda.
I could just as easily to the same and fill this response with data on Islam’s war against Christianity. From there, I could make the case for the appointment of a Christian Envoy to root out ‘Christianophobia’.
It raises the question: why do we have envoys for antisemitism and Islamophobia, yet none for Christianity — especially considering that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three major Semitic religions? Surely, one set of rules would work for all three, unless the intention is to elevate one above the others.
This report appears to support such an outcome by conflating Islam with racial discrimination—similar to that of Aboriginal and Asian communities—rather than religious discrimination. In its recommendations and where it suits the report’s purpose, Islam is framed as a race rather than a religion. This framing allows all other religions to be excluded to the sole advancement of Islam.
Mr Malik has constructed his recommendations to exclude all other religions. The opportunity to counter religious discrimination against all Australians, against all religions was not taken. Surely one set of rules could have been written to assist all religions counter discrimination. This report chose instead to elevate Islam above all others.
Let Islam Be Judged on Its Actions
Debating Islam from a cultural standpoint is counter-productive because it first requires agreement on the meaning of Australian culture. This has been a minefield for a generation as it provides an opportunity for the sneering “left” to display their contempt for Australia in a way that avoids the debate.
Instead, I ask the Envoy why he failed to mention the actions taken in recent years in the name of Islam – violent, unlawful actions which cannot be defended. This is an indefensible decision because it’s these actions which give rise to legitimate anti-Islamic sentiment.
Surely the correct approach would have been to consider what version of Islam could exist comfortably with the other religions that make up the wider Australian community. Instead, the report whitewashes Islamic atrocities and suggests all of Islam must be defended, even Hamas.
Below are examples of ongoing atrocities committed in the name of Islam, included to highlight issues that SHOULD have been addressed in the report, along with proposed solutions.
Islamists’ violence against Christians rose 60% since 2023, with 380 million Christians facing high/extreme persecution globally in 2025, many in Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa saw Jihadists displace 16.2 million Christian.
Militants often demand faith renunciation (e.g., reciting Islamic prayers) before killing; women and children are disproportionately affected, with abductions leading to forced conversions (e.g. Leah Sharibu case, ongoing since 2018).
In this period Islamists have murdered between 40,000 and 55,000 Christians in sub-Saharan Africa. Many of these Christians have sought safe harbour in Australia. (Is it Mr Malik’s position these people should not be able to talk about their lived experience of religious persecution, rape and murder of family members at the hands of Islamic fighters?)
According to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC), anti-Christian hate crimes reached 2,444 in 2023, corresponding with the increase in Islamic immigration.
I could refer to the 3,647 proven cases of rape in the UK involving Islamic grooming gangs, with victims as young as 11. As with the Australian Skaif rape gangs, there is a clear use of rape as a weapon of Hijrah, albeit this being an interpretation scholars contest. If so many Islamists choose the violent interpretation of Islam, how can it be simply glossed over by the report?[i]
And of course, nobody mention October 7th [ii]or the Yazidi Genocide[iii] (survivors lived experience on this link) and this link[iv] from the UN Human Rights Council.
I might suggest the missing definition of Islamophobia could simply be ‘anyone who refuses to ignore the violence, hatred and conquest wrought in the name of Islam’
Report Preface
The preface includes this quote:
It is strange that we should not realise that no enemy could be more dangerous to us than the hatred with which we hate him, and that by our efforts against him we do less damage to our enemy than is wrought in our own heart. ST. AUGUSTINE
This passage is used to warn Christians of the damage they do themselves in hating Islam. It is misattributed – this quote does not appear in the works of St Augustine.
Instead, it encapsulates an ancient wisdom that hate begets hate, which is contained in the meaning of Mathew 26:52. The actual author is Rev Martin Luther King Jr.
The other quote, stated first in the preface does come from the Hadiths:
The Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand people are safe, and the believer is the one people trust with their lives and wealth. [Sunan an-Nasa’i, Hadith 4995]
The juxtaposition of these two quotes sets the tone for the report. Put simply, Muslims are to be trusted and Christians should stop hating them.
I think it is necessary to talk about our options as Christians when confronted with evil, in response to the aggressive Islamic agenda and whitewashing of Islamic terror evident in this report.
What the Bible Says on Defence from Evil
During the Sermon on the Mount, at Mathew 5:39 Jesus says:
But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
In Mathew 26:52 a disciple, identified as Peter in the Gospel of John, draws a sword to defend Jesus from being arrested and struck a guard, and Jesus tells him to put away his weapon. The lesson is that violent behaviour can lead to more violent behaviour.[v] Debate on this lesson goes to the plan Jesus had to martyr himself, which Peter’s actions threatened, rather than a blanket instruction to never defend oneself.
The debate on self-defence more commonly turns on the meaning of Luke 22:36:
Then he said to them, but now he that hath a bag, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath none, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.[vi]
Is this passage allegory, or is this a command to take up a literal sword? The footnote to the 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) says:
All this talk is by way of an allegory, as if he said, O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived hitherto as it were in peace: but now there is a most sharp battle at hand to be fought, and therefore you must lay all other things aside, and think upon furnishing yourselves in armour. And what this armour is, he showeth by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden, and reproved Peter for striking with the sword.
Ephesians 6:10-18, which is too long to reproduce here, supports this viewpoint. And yet Romans 12: 17-19 says:
Repay no evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceablywith all. Beloved, never avenge yourself, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
The Bible does not make an explicit statement that violence in defence of oneself or of another is a sin. It does make the point that revenge is a sin and defending oneself out of hate for the other is a sin.
John 15:13 instructs:
Greater love than this hath no man, when any man bestoweth his life for his friends.
This can be interpreted as self-defence of others. If one gave one’s life out of non-violence, simply kneeled and let them take your head, then your friends would be next. This verse only works when read in the context of dying in defence of one’s kin.
The Book of Esther describes the Purim, where Jews defended themselves using weapons as an organised resistance to King Xerxes 1, who had caused an order to be made that they be slaughtered. This use of self-defence of their kin decimated the King’s forces. Significantly Jesus celebrated Purim (John 5:1).
For mine, the last word in this debate is contained in Section 132:26-27 of the Doctrine and Covenants. A sacred text for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes it clear that the sin of killing another relates to the spilling of “innocent blood”.
This verse is also found in Proverbs 6:17 where God condemned “The haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and the hands that shed innocent blood,”
Those who come into your community with the stated intent of “convert or die” are not innocent, once their actions turn violent. Self-defence is then permitted.
This accords with my long-held belief that free speech, including religious speech, stops where calls for violence begin.
There can be no religious exemption to speech calling for violence against another.
Aboriginal – Indian Admixture
The report appears to be providing ‘air cover’ for a growing argument that Western settlers are migrants, no different from Indian and Muslim migrants today, and therefore have no more of a claim to Australia than they do.
This relies on the report’s mis-dating of Javanese contact with Australia (see next section), and secondly on the juxtaposition of Aboriginals and Islamic traders in the report’s Acknowledgement of Country.
This relates to the level of Indian genes found in Aboriginal DNA, especially those in Western and Northern Australia. [vii]
It’s true the race we know as Aboriginal came ‘out of Africa’ like the rest of us around 70,000 years ago. So, we are all one people in that respect. Evolution of Aboriginal DNA mostly stopped around 10,000 years ago with the loss of the land bridge between Australian and Asia/PNG.
There was migration from North Indian/Bengal settlers who came to the west coast around 4000 years ago. They make up between 4% and 11% of Aboriginal DNA, called an admixture event. This is hardly a claim to country.
Islam Predates Western Settlement in Australia
The report does accurately mention the Javanese contact with Australia, coming from Islamic traders from Makassar (modern day Java). This coastal trade extended from Darwin to the Pilbara, which Mr Malik dates to the 15th Century.[i] There is confirmation of this in the earliest known map of Indonesia from 1601, which clearly shows this part of Australia.
Conveniently, this corresponds with the spread of Islam in Indonesia, which started with Persian traders in the 1400s and came to end with a caliphate in the 1500s.
A glaring error in Mr Malik’s report is the start date for Javanese exploration of Australia. It was not the 1500s. It dates back to at least 931 AD. This was the first known mention of a southern land contained in the historical records, etched into a copper plaque called Sri Mpu Sindok Inscription of Waharu IV (931)[viii] which the Indonesian Government now holds.
With a sailing distance of 12 days and the Javanese in possession of ocean-going sailing boats, it stands to reason this exploration and subsequent trade did in fact happen.[ix] This is confirmed in the a sharing of language and customs between Northern Aboriginals and Makassar people.
Mr Malik describes in glowing terms the Makassar contact, and in keeping with the rest of the report, he fails to tell the other side of the story.[vii]
Mr Malik’s report, like so much government communication, is riddled with misinformation or disinformation.
Anthropologist Ian McIntosh has speculated that the initial effects of contact with the Makassan fishermen resulted in “turmoil” with the extent of Islamic influence being noteworthy. In another paper McIntosh says – “strife, poverty and domination … is a previously unrecorded legacy of contact between Aborigines and Indonesians“. He claims that the Makassan appear to have been welcomed initially; although, relations deteriorated when, “aborigines began to feel they were being exploited … leading to violence on both sides“.
The argument that Australia should be Islamic because they were here first is a rewriting of history. Javanese visited Australia, they did not colonise it. Islam came 500 years after that contact and they did not colonise it either- we did.
It is interesting to note that the Javanese had steel, advanced ship construction, weaponry, cannons, gunpowder, advanced tools and of course the wheel at the time their presence was documented in the early 1700s. None of these were shared with the Aboriginal people, as would be the case if the intention was exploitation not assimilation.
This does suggest the exchange was one sided and limited to economic exploitation of marine resources and not the rosy love-in that the report portrays.
Palestine
Palestine gets quite a run – four pages plus multiple other mentions (49 total). Hamas is NOT mentioned and October 7th is used as an example of people hating on Muslims. This suggests Mr Malik supports Hamas and is using this report to cover for them.[ii]
The section concludes with this call-out:
The destruction of Gaza”, writes Peter Beinart, has become “a symbol of our age” signifying “unchecked cruelty and unbearable pain.
This really sums up the report. Hamas do unspeakable things and people understandably respond with suspicion and hostility to anyone defending Hamas’ actions. Along comes Mr Malik who defines this reaction as Islamophobia and calls for a massive government apparatus to silence those reacting in that manner.
The attempt to define Gaza in terms of Israel’s demolition of Gaza after the event, in part to get their hostages back, fails to acknowledge the horror that led up to that action. This is disgraceful behaviour from a government official.
Islam and Terror
Quote from the report:
Assertions regarding the inherent violence of Islam are not confined to far-right extremist echo chambers; such claims have also been propagated within scholarly and popular literature. In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, there was an overwhelming proliferation of publications that contributed to narratives depicting Islam as intrinsically associated with violence, extremism and terrorism. Despite more than 2 decades of grassroots initiatives by community organisations and efforts by Muslim scholars, imams and academics to distinguish between terrorism and mainstream Islam, the continued rise in global terror incidents post the 11 September terror attacks perpetuated the obscuring of extremist acts within the broader, diverse spectrum of Muslim beliefs and practices.
This passage, central to Malik’s refutation regarding Islam and terror, makes no sense. To me it reads as follows. Since September 11 we have tried really hard to distinguish between Islam and terror, and yet Muslims keep committing atrocities so nobody believes us.
As a result of this failure Australians have “Islam anxiety…Muslims feel isolated, marginalised and disenfranchised, as they are perceived to be framed as the threat from within, and divided along the lines as “good Muslim, bad Muslim”
On one hand Mr Malik is acknowledging Islamists’ ongoing extreme acts, then on the other hand complaining about the “good Muslim/bad Muslim” dichotomy. The report combines all shades of Islam into a single entity, in effect using peaceful Muslims as human shields for Islamic terrorists.
This was the time to defend the good and excise the evil within – however this is not the path that the report takes.
Christianity and Judaism have their issues, yet it is Islam the report is trying to whitewash – so let’s stay with that. The report concludes the section with this statement:
Conversely, the combination of local and global terrorist attacks, the promotion of a constant fear of, and threat from, local Muslim extremists, confusion, distortion, and misrepresentation of Islam, has generated significant anxiety and fear toward Muslim Australians. This has resulted in them being perceived more negatively than members of any other religious group for an extended period.
If there were not “local Muslim extremists”, local and global terrorist acts (nice self-own) then there would be nothing to fuel ‘Islamic Anxiety’!
The absence of a single Christian terrorist attack in Australia stands in contrast to the behaviour of the Islamic community and explains the absence of ‘Christian Anxiety’ – except amongst “left” wing social media commentators concerned about their chances of sudden immolation when passing a Church. [see references below]
Freedom of Speech
Report P21 quotes:
Freedom of speech is a critical pillar of a free society. It is imperative to affirm that these recommendations are not aimed at censoring legitimate, lawful discourse or even the dislike or critique of Muslims or Islam. Instead, they are intended to address the serious issue of prejudice, racism and hate that incite discrimination, hostility or violence. Criticism of Islam or Muslims, when grounded in respectful and lawful debate, must remain protected as a fundamental exercise of free speech.
I am pleased to see this included, yet the conflict with the recommendations calls the intent of the statement into question. As an example, this is the next point in the report:
I am confident that we can foster a society where anti-Muslim hate and prejudice are acknowledged, challenged and rectified.
Rectified? I can’t ask someone who criticises Christianity to rectify their comment! On one hand Mr Malik talks about freedom of speech and on the other he talks about forcing people to rectify their behaviour and comment.
The Recommedations
There are 54 headline recommendations, many of which contain multiple parts, extending across 12 government departments (I won’t go over all of these in detail as many repeat).
Recommendation 5: Commission of Inquiry into Islamophobia
Establish a commission of inquiry into Islamophobia, with Terms of Reference to examine all aspects of Islamophobia.
This recommendation takes the anecdotal evidence of anti-Islamic sentiment that the report advances and turns it into a root and branch inquiry into every limitation on the expansion of Islam in Australia.
In this, we see the report laying the groundwork for a British-style police state, where criticism of Islam is prosecuted, while similar actions against Christianity or Judaism are not.
Additionally, this inquiry is to look at whether a definition of Islamophobia is needed. When taken together with the absence of a definition in this report, one could suggest the intention is to allow Islam to decide what is Islamophobic.
Recommendation 6: Whitewash Palestine
Establish a commission of inquiry into anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism.
This continues the approach to ignore anything the Palestinians and/or Hamas have done and to characterise the motive for everything else as solely racism, instead of outrage at the slaughter of innocents.
Recommendation 7: Home Affairs to Lead Islamic Propaganda
Strengthen funding to enable research teams to gather evidence on effective interventions that combat Islamophobia in Australia, and to develop, evaluate and disseminate anti-Islamophobia programs.
Home Affairs is not the only Department being tasked with propaganda duties.
Recommendation 8 – Home Affairs to physically defend mosques
This recommendation sums up the report. Home Affairs is to lead programs to guarantee the security of Islamic schools, Islamic community centres and mosques. Shouldn’t this be written without the Islamic descriptor? Isn’t it the Government’s job NOW to protect the safety of schools, community centres and places of worship? And why not use the laws we already have which apply equally to all religions?
Recommendation 15: Mandatory Sensitivity Training
Mandate compulsory religious sensitivity training for all Australian Federal Police officers.
This same initiative has turned the United Kingdom into a police state. Recent incidents include arresting a citizen for saying he doesn’t like to see Palestinian flags flying in his street,[xi]
The Coskun case this year is relevant here. A man burnt pages from the Quran while criticising Islam for defending Islamic terrorism. He was convicted for hatred against Muslims, even though his comments were a discussion of the contents of the book, not personally against Muslims themselves. This is the problem with the report’s attempt to restore blasphemy laws for Islam – and not Christianity and Judaism. No matter how this is implemented, the laws will prevent any criticism of Islam in any situation. Even terrorism.[xii]
In case there is any doubt of the purpose of this section to implement the UK policing model in Australia, the report includes:
20b.hate crime scrutiny panels, similar to the United Kingdom model, at district levels, to improve communication, operational policing of hate crime and community trust over time.
22. Implement religious discrimination training for all legal professionals within the Attorney General’s Department. Just to make sure nobody trusted with judicial fairness stops to consider should people be prosecuted for criticising the Palestinian flag.
23. Establish workshops to assist staff in all divisions to recognise and address unconscious biases that may affect their work and decision-making process. Struggle sessions for Islam-hesitancy.
Recommendation 21: Counter-terrorism Laws
Establish an advisory panel consisting of representatives from diverse Muslim communities to provide insights into the potential impacts and unintended consequences of new counter-terrorism legislation on Muslim communities.
The report did not establish that our current laws were unfairly affecting Islam, so why is this needed?
Recommendation 28-31: Brainwash Our Children
Review the national curriculum pertaining to Islam, Muslims, and Muslim history, in both primary and secondary education, to ensure content is accurate and to make inclusions of and acknowledge Muslim contributions to Australia, Western civilisation and the development of universal values.
(Provide) clear, actionable guidelines specifically aimed at combating Islamophobia, alongside broader anti-racism, diversity and social cohesion measures. It should ensure a whole-sector approach to fostering diversity and equity in the Education Sector.
There are three pages on how to use education to advance Islam. The report conflagrates Islamophobia with Aboriginal discrimination and ethnic racism. In this construction, Islamophobia is a product of racial discrimination rather than religious discrimination. The effect is to exclude religious discrimination against other religions from the debate entirely.
The report reveals government will continue its role as the chief purveyor of misinformation and disinformation.
Recommendation 41: Islam in Sport
Invest more in funding community-level sporting initiatives and organisations. These community grants must be evaluated, leveraging the research capacity this report advocates (such as) a. support the organisation of interfaith sports tournaments, with mixed-faith teams participating.
Sounds reasonable, until the reason for this is explained:
b.provide funding for training programs that educate coaches and volunteers about cultural sensitivity and religious practices. Which Iassume includes segregation of the sexes, not shaking hands with unbelievers after the match, etc.
e. fund the development or renovation of community sports facilities, including spaces for prayer, reflection and meditation.
Prayer rooms at the footie, cricket, swimming etc, using taxpayers’ money to pay the cost. Add up the cost of that idea.
g.encourage partnerships between sporting organisations and local Muslim community groups to co-host events, workshops and discussions that focus on building relationships and understanding.
Send your children to footie training and they end up in a Mosque, or getting Islamic instruction in the changing sheds.
Establish an educational not-for-profit centre that affirms the presence, contributions and achievements of Muslim Australians and that promotes initiatives in arts, culture and media…foster active collaboration between media outlets, journalists, community organisations and educators to promote narratives that foster understanding, respect and social cohesion. This includes:
i.supporting media campaigns that challenge stereotypes and misinformation about Muslim Australians and Islam
ii.creating platforms for Muslim voices and stories to be heard authentically and positively
In other words, Government-funded propaganda. This isn’t an isolated recommendation; it is one of the recurring themes.
Recommendation 54: Subvert Parliament
Develop codes of conduct for all Australian Parliamentarians and staff on what constitutes Islamophobia, and implement mandatory …annual…training programs on Islamophobia for all parliamentarians and their advisors.
This recommendation continues the intention that these measures should not be written generally to protect all religions, rather they should be written only for Islam. The Jenkins report established the dangerous precedent that Members of Parliament can be forced to undergo re-education. This recommendation is therefore NOT unprecedented. It is, nonetheless, an unacceptable interference in the exercise of the duties of a Member of Parliament, as is Jenkins.
The report seeks to impose penalties on Members of Parliament for “wrongthink”:
Introduce clear contingencies for responses to parliamentarians who engage in hate speech or behaviour. These contingencies may include…formal reprimands and temporary suspension from the party room or various party-granted roles…establish an independent oversight for conduct complaints.There is already a formal complaint process in the Parliament, the report seeks to overturn that tested procedure and replace it with a Kangaroo Court of his own construction.
Conclusion
There is talk on social media of a Voice-style body to monitor legislation, yet this is not what the report says. It calls for a co-ordinating committee to oversee the implementation and operation of these measures. That is not unprecedented in social change initiatives. The Government may choose to make this an ’Islamic Voice’, and that would be a significant and risky policy.
Instead, the report targets the Australian Government and seeks to root out any impediment to the expansion of Islam in Australia. Additionally, the report calls for taxpayers’ money to be spent indoctrinating and compromising our entire society – education, judiciary, legislature, policing, media, communications and even sport.
The report fails to define Islamophobia and instead chooses a “we know it when we see it” approach. That is, Islamophobia is defined from lived experience – with those experiences no different to many others in our multi-ethnic and multi-religious community.
No cost/benefit analysis is attempted; there is no debate on the practicality of the measures proposed. This is nothing other than a shopping list born of ambition for Islam in Australia, with zero consideration of what the wider community wants or needs.
Mr Malik clearly does not want Islam to take an equal place amongst all of Australia’s religions. Rather he seeks to elevate Islam above all others. It seems that he wants the government to give Islam an opening, and support from social, legislated and financial means.
I will be researching whether the report and some of the recommendations contravene the Commonwealth Constitution.
One Nation opposes all the recommendations, as well as any others from any source that seek to divide Australia—particularly those that promote racial or religious division.
We are one community, we are ONE nation and our laws must protect all of us equally.
[x] The Hilton Hotel Bombing is still blamed on the Ananda Marga, and Wieambilla shooting was in no way related to Christian teachings, the cause there was perceived government oppression combined with some radical sovereign citizen beliefs.
