Responses to anti-terror laws
David Rutledge: Welcome to the program.
With the government's proposed anti-terror laws currently under review, we're looking at the response of various religious groups to the legislation, or rather, the lack of response.
There was an interesting article in the Melbourne Age last week, which called on the mainline Christian churches to be more vocal in defending democratic freedoms that could be threatened under the anti-terror laws. The article said that the churches were over-stretched, devoting their energies to industrial relations, and distracted (as always) by their own internal wrangles over sexuality; meanwhile the passing of some of the most crucial legislation in Australian history looms ever closer.
But that's not to say that there aren't any Christian groups entering the debate. There are, and one of them is the Australian branch of Pax Christi, an international Christian peace organisation. Pax Christi Australia held a forum in Melbourne on Monday night to discuss the anti-terror laws, and some of the insights that came out of that meeting are well worth hearing.
The President of Pax Christi Australia is Joseph Camilleri, who's also Professor of International Relations at La Trobe University in Melbourne. He feels that there's more at stake here than just civil liberties, and that there are broader questions to be asked about the way in which the government and its allies are pursuing the so-called war against terror.
Joseph Camilleri: I think it's not unfair to say that the overwhelming response of the Australian government in line with the response of the British government and the American government, has been that if terrorism is the problem, the way to handle it is by coercion of various kinds. And at the most drastic level, in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq, you try and identify as many terrorists as you can, and take them out. Unfortunately, it's not working. This legislation is part of a mindset as to how to respond to the terrorist problem, which is dealing with symptoms rather than causes, and is likely to make the problem worse rather than better.
So that's one issue: why is government telling us that there may be prospective suicide bombers, or terrorists, even within Australia, as there are apparently within Britain itself. How is it that we've come to this situation, and what can we do to remedy those causes which are leading to that situation? It seems to me that the legislation that we are being offered, is based on the politics of fear, rather than the politics of hope, and the politics of empathy, which would lead to quite a different approach in dealing with what is admittedly a serious and important problem that has to be faced.
So that's one thing. And the next thing, of course, is the relationship with Islam. I think there's a grave danger that in our efforts to deal with this particular problem called terrorism, we do it in a way that very severely damages the relationship with a huge part of the world, which is one of the other major adherents to one of the three major Abrahamic faiths. And unless we are careful as to how we deal with this particular problem, the result may be one which brings to the fore the worst features of the historical relationship between these two Abrahamic faiths, and puts out of reach some of the more positive, constructive and indeed enriching parts of the dialogue that has been possible at times in different parts of the world between these two monotheistic faiths.
And this is being followed very closely in Indonesia, very closely followed in Malaysia, who are asking very probing questions as to where precisely does lie the democratic ethic in Australia.
David Rutledge: You mentioned Malaysia there, and in a previous conversation you drew an interesting and I suppose very ironic comparison between this proposed legislation and the Internal Security Act, which has been in force in Malaysia.
Joseph Camilleri: Yes, that's true, and of course there's a fascinating story there. The Internal Security Act of course we should remember, had its origins in British rule in Malaysia, so that's worth remembering as well. But it is true that after independence the Internal Security Act was used as a political weapon and was used even fairly recently, of the last few decades, to curb the activities of people who were opposed to the government in power, and this used to be an issue that resulted in very severe criticism by many countries, Australia in particular in the region, as to how in Malaysia the Internal Security Act was being used to silence or to curb political opposition in that country. Prime Minister Mahathir at the time was often very severely criticised for his refusal to repeal or very substantially change, Malaya's Internal Security Act.
But now we are on the verge of introducing something which in many fundamental respects would be precisely similar. The Australian government as a result of this Act, would have pretty much the same powers that the Malaysian government has under the Internal Security Act, which is to detain people who have not been charged, and to suspend or deprive them of many of the rights and liberties that normally they would be expected to enjoy without any public accountability, in the midst of secrecy. That's precisely what the anti-terrorism legislation that's to go before the parliament in the next few weeks, is about.
David Rutledge: You've said that the legislation being enacted by Parliament has been an over-reaction to the threat of terrorism in Australia. If a terrorist attack were to take place in Australia, would you be re-thinking that view?
Joseph Camilleri: No, I think that this kind of legislation, this response, which is based on coercive, intimidatory tactics, which are likely to entrap the innocent at least as much as the guilty, is likely to make the terrorist issue worse, and likely to make terrorism more than less likely. So if and when there were to be a terrorist attack in the future, for me it would be as much evidence for the proposition that we are not getting our response right, and that it is time to change tack, otherwise things could get much worse rather than any better.
David Rutledge: Joseph Camilleri, President of Pax Christi Australia, and Professor of International Relations at La Trobe University in Melbourne.
Well it's been pointed out often enough that Muslim communities may bear the brunt of the government's proposed anti-terror legislation. But the response of Australian Muslims, like the response of the Australian churches, has been rather muted. Or at least that's the view of Irfan Yusuf, who's a lawyer and a commentator on Muslim issues. Irfan Yusuf has a lively internet presence: he runs a series of weblogs that are well worth checking out. And he says that if there are concerns for Muslims with these laws, then Muslim representative bodies, such as the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, or AFIC, aren't communicating those concerns effectively. He says that AFIC is also compromised by its cosy relationship with the Australian government.
Irfan Yusuf: A lot of these bodies really don't have the capacity to engage Australian governments on a public policy level. They're able to engage Middle Eastern governments, because these are the governments that have been funding them for so many years. And so unfortunately, they may well approach Australian governments in the same manner, and that is a manner of grovelling and not criticising and what-have-you. I mean these bodies, a lot of them used to get money, and perhaps still do, get money from Saudi Arabia, Libya, United Arab Emirates, other countries, and of course that funding always came at a cost, and that cost was no criticism.
David Rutledge: That's how they're used to doing business.
Irfan Yusuf: Yes, that's pretty much how they're used to doing business with governments, and my fear is that with the Australian government, they're going to use the same method, and I don't think that's really what the government wants. The Government wants realistic advice and genuine services being provided because they realise it's a matter of national security. The last thing you'd want when you're dealing with national security, is a group of people who just behave sycophantically and tell you what you want to hear.
David Rutledge: Well let's have a look at some of the responses, as far as they go. The President of the Federation of Islamic Councils, Ameer Ali, has said that the existing laws are sufficient to counter the threat of terrorism, that the government should pay heed to the concerns of the community on this legislation. Now that's a public statement, isn't that being outspoken enough?
Irfan Yusuf: That is a public statement in terms of a sound bite. But it's not enough to throw one or two sound bites out, especially after you've already thrown a sound bite out that says 'We support these laws and will sell them to the community' - which was the initial sound bite he sent out, even before one word of the Bill was even drafted. The other thing is that often when these leaders actually go and talk about these issues, they do so without having any knowledge of how public policy processes work, or how politicians can be swayed or what we have heard is, he's said, and he's right, I agree with him when he says that the current laws are sufficient. But the thing is, it's not really backed up with any hard facts, and what I think that shows is an inability to engage on a public policy level.
David Rutledge: Well if the leaders are staying pretty quiet, or being less effective than they should be on the proposed anti-terror legislation, what about the general Muslim community? How do you take the temperature of what's going on there, how people are feeling about this?
Irfan Yusuf: Well I can only talk from an anecdotal level because no-one's actually gone out and done a poll or some sort of proper survey as to what some of the opinion is. But I'd have to say that people are generally very uncertain about the laws and they're certainly very sceptical of the ability of these laws to protect our security.
David Rutledge: Do you think there's also a level of apathy in the community? You wrote recently that a group of Muslim lawyers called a meeting to discuss the new laws and prepare a campaign, and four people turned up.
Irfan Yusuf: Yes, there is that apathy I guess too. The problem is that every three or four months, there's a new change in the terror laws, and then there's all this panic; and we've had about three or four of those, and I guess by now, everyone's thinking 'Oh yeah, you know, we had the other three changes and the sky didn't fall down, and now you've got the fourth one, and what difference is it going to make'.
But again, this is where I think there's been a failure by peak bodies to communicate, because there are provisions in this legislation which do genuinely affect people of Muslim background. I won't say they target, I won't say they're deliberately designed to target but they certainly do affect those people in a disproportionate manner. So if they were upset and if they were angry about the Bill, you'd think the logical thing to do would be for them to communicate its provisions to their communities and then get them to lobby politicians, and Senators, and what-have-you, and state Premiers. But that hasn't really happened.
David Rutledge: I read a recent article by an Anglican commentator who was writing about how the Christian churches have also been very quiet on this legislation, and she was saying that it's partly because the churches have never yet had any reason to mistrust the government when it comes to defending the fundamentals of the Australian way of life, regardless of other differences they might have had. And what about the Muslim communities? We hear a lot about how Muslims are being marginalised and coming under pressure and suspicion, but are we perhaps also seeing that there's actually a large silent majority of Aussie Mossies out there who feel that really the government is doing an OK job, and can be trusted on this?
Irfan Yusuf: I think there's a large number of people who are probably in that category. You don't see a lot of Muslims marching, or people who are overtly Muslim marching on the streets about industrial relations, or about other contentious issues. If they are involved in campaigns it's because they also happen to be involved in the union movement or some other sector that's not happy with the laws. I guess a lot of Muslims are feeling that the push has really come from civil society, even when the ALP has been fairly lacklustre in their opposition to the laws. You know, you can always rely on the media, the lawyers, and even Liberal backbenchers to say things which we hope will bring effective change to the laws. But yes, there is a certain amount of apathy, but I think a lot of the apathy is to do with the fact that people just don't really understand how draconian these laws are.
David Rutledge: Muslim commentator and lawyer, Irfan Yusuf.
- Professor Joseph Camilleri
- President of Pax Christi Australia
- Irfan Yusuf
- Lawyer and a commentator on Muslim issues
- The church must speak out on terror laws
- Article by Muriel Porter in The Age
- Terrorism, Anti-Terrorism and the Globalisation of Insecurity
- Arena article by Joseph Camilleri
- Muslim apathy makes passing terror laws that much easier
- Article by Irfan Yusuf
- Planet Irf
- Irfan Yusuf's weblog (view author's profile for more weblogs)
- David Rutledge
- Noel de Bien