Australia, along with all of the West, is at war. The enemy is Islamic terrorism. What should we be doing? Here are ten suggestions.
First, the politicians should no longer preside over immigration with the negligence and gross incompetence that they have so appallingly displayed in the past. This extends to the refugee intake, whatever the Bingley Award-winning ASIO chief Duncan Lewis thinks. To come into our Commonwealth, they should positively demonstrate they will contribute and become loyal Australians, with the great gift of Australian citizenship no longer to be distributed like confetti.
Second, we should stop jihadist fighters from ever returning to Australia. Nor should we seek their extradition. Rather, we should, with our allies, ensure if not their destruction, their capture.
Third, we should encourage the Americans to take captured jihadists to Guantánamo Bay, a great achievement of the Bush presidency. This solved the problem President Clinton encountered when the FBI warned him it was pointless to arrest Osama bin Laden as any resulting prosecution in America would be doomed. This was because much of the strong intelligence evidence against him would have been technically inadmissible. Despite its great success, President Obama planned to close the centre. Unsuccessful in that, he released a number of detainees; many returned to terrorism.
Fourth, given the way the pendulum in the criminal justice system has moved excessively towards protecting the accused, we should ensure strong intelligence evidence is admissible in terrorist prosecutions. And on conviction, it is crucial that terrorists be kept in remote separate prisons so they cannot infect other prisoners.
Fifth, jihadists who are reasonably likely to be dual nationals should have their Australian citizenship revoked. There is the problem of those who are able to prove that they are definitely only Australian citizens and have managed to return. At the present time the authorities can detain suspects for up to 14 days. During the Second World War, enemy aliens, as well as locals believed on good evidence to be engaging in treasonable practices, were subject to internment under the defence power in the Constitution.
Sixth, there are today a number of persons at liberty who are believed on strong intelligence evidence to be planning to engage in terrorist acts, as was the Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi. Given that we are clearly at war, is it not time to consider internment as a legitimate defence to protect the civil population? It must never be forgotten that the primary duty of government is to defend the borders, to maintain law and order and to protect the citizenry from hostilities and crime.
Seventh, calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty deserve to be considered seriously. The constitutional intention is that this be decided by each jurisdiction, state or federal. But in 2010, federal legislation, based of course on a UN treaty, tries to stop the states from re-introducing the penalty. What total abolitionists forget is that in wartime, we can hardly expect our soldiers to risk their lives for their country while traitors are protected at home. In wartime, countries normally visit such offences with the supreme penalty, execution. (Incidentally, that gentle soul, Tori Johnson, was not ‘executed’ in the Lindt café siege. He was brutally murdered.)
There were however glaring exceptions to this normal behaviour of the authorities in the Second World War when, as Hal Colebatch has demonstrated, an extraordinary number of instances of treachery were committed by communists with complete impunity, especially on the waterfront. This can be best explained by the actions of the Left in blocking the emergence of an all-party coalition as in the UK. A Curtin-Menzies government would have acted against the traitors who endangered the lives of service-men and women.
Eighth, we must eliminate any no-go areas where parts of Australia or indeed family units operate under sharia law in contradiction to the law of the land.
Whether this be no-go emerging mini-caliphates as in France, or in the toleration of welfare-subsidised polygamy, child marriage, female genital mutilation, the wearing of the veil and segregated swimming pools, no deviation should be allowed.
Ninth, the subsidy of terrorism through foreign aid, welfare, grants or through the milking of school funds should end. Only schools committed to the Australian system and values should be subsidised or indeed permitted.
Tenth, what is effectively an halal tax should be declared illegal.
The treatment of Cardinal George Pell indicates that it is high time we revived that ancient and venerable Anglo-American institution, the grand jury. With all the powers of a Royal Commission, a grand jury decides, in absolute and legally protected confidentiality, whether or not there should be a prosecution. Over a year ago it was leaked that the Victorian police were ‘investigating’ fresh allegations of abuse.
As if it were judge and jury, the ABC aired these with a book to follow. It then took a long eight months for the police to interview the Cardinal. Six months later, they still cannot decide whether to prosecute. The conclusion must be that their case is so weak that the only trial to be offered is by media.
Now that indigenous constitutional recognition has been abandoned in favour of a cross between a House of Lords and a Raj Chamber of Princes, what will all those campaigning CEO’s do? Many of the Lord-Princes will, incidentally, have stronger blood lines to the British Isles than I have.
Attending the NSW Liberal party’s Convention to discuss making it at last democratic will cost almost $200, too much for most forgotten people. So will the rivers of gold the powerbrokers extract from lobbying pay for the usual suspects?
Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.