Last week the ABC 702 radio presenter Deborah Cameron referred to the "so-called terror trial in Parramatta". On Friday, after deliberating for over a month, a jury at the Supreme Court returned guilty verdicts against five men on terrorism charges. The jurors were unaware that four other men, charged following the same police investigation, had already pleaded guilty and had been sentenced.

Clearly the jury was convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that the five men acted in the preparation of a terrorist act. Certainly the evidence, albeit circumstantial, was overwhelming. There were numerous intercepted conversations and telephone buggings and some of the men had collected large quantities of weapons and ammunition, along with chemicals that could be used in constructing explosive devices.

What was a "so-called terror trial" to an ABC presenter in Ultimo was the real thing to the men and women of the jury in Parramatta.

In her initial report of the jury's decision on The World Today on Friday, Philippa McDonald, even after the guilty findings, was still referring to what had been "alleged" against the men. She editorialised the case was "hugely circumstantial" and maintained it "had to be said that, for a lot of the Crown case, the defence came back with something else".

There is considerable evidence that members of what is best termed the civil liberties lobby - including some journalists, lawyers and academics - do not want to accept that a few men in Western societies want to engage in violent jihad. The evident cynicism is not confined to Australia but extends to Britain and the United States, where acts of violence by militant Islamists have occurred.

Writing in The Australian in 2006, Phillip Adams identified with the cynics within the left and the Muslim world concerning the reported attempt to use liquid explosives to bring down seven airliners flying from Heathrow in Britain to the US and Canada. He went so far as to hint all this might have been a distraction to divert attention from the political difficulties of the then British Labour prime minister, Tony Blair.

Antony Loewenstein, a high-profile critic of Israel, supported Adams in the Crikey newsletter. Loewenstein maintained the Heathrow incident might have been a political concoction.

Once again, a jury found otherwise. Last month, three British Muslims were convicted of planning a series of suicide/homicide attacks against trans-Atlantic airlines. The case was documented in the first-class BBC Panorama documentary Terror in the Skies, shown here on Four Corners last month. The program showed the "suicide" videos recorded by the terrorists before the intended attacks were thwarted by British police and intelligence services.

The evidence suggests the threat to Australia from local citizens and residents is less than in Britain or the US. Even so, it is real enough as several recent cases - before last week's verdict - attest.

- On September 25, Justice Megan Latham sentenced Bilal Khazal to a non-parole period of nine years. Khazal had been found guilty by a jury of the offence of making a document connected with assistance in a terrorist act. The judge found the prisoner had not demonstrated any remorse or contrition.

- On September 2, in the Victorian Supreme Court, Justice Bernard Bongiorno sentenced Shane Kent, who had pleaded guilty to being a member of a terrorist organisation and making a document connected with preparation for a terrorist act, to a non-parole period of three years and nine months. The judge noted that Kent, a convert to Islam, was not contrite for his actions. Moreover, he did not accept that Kent had abandoned the cause of violent jihad.

- On February 3, Bongiorno sentenced seven men who had been found guilty in Victoria of knowingly being members of a terrorist organisation. Some of this group were also convicted of other terrorism offences. In handing down his sentences, the judge commented about the unwillingness of the prisoners to renounce violent jihad.

- Justice Anthony Whealy made a similar finding when sentencing Faheem Lodhi, in the NSW Supreme Court in 2006, to a non-parole period of 15 years for a terrorism- related offence.

It is not as if those convicted of terrorism offences in Australia in recent years have come up against an unfair system - despite complaints reported in the media by some of their family members and supporters. In all the cases cited above, judges have gone out of their way to ensure a fair trial. And juries have exercised considerable caution, including reaching some "not guilty" findings. Also, Justices Bongiorno and Whealy expressed valid concerns about the extremely harsh conditions experienced by some prisoners.

The fact is that guilty verdicts have been reached, and relatively tough sentences handed out, on account of evidence which led to convictions beyond reasonable doubt. ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and state police forces tend to receive criticism. However, the convictions in the terrorism-related cases in both NSW and Victoria demonstrate that Australia's intelligence and police services have done a first-rate job in protecting the liberties of all of us.

GENEVA (AFP) – Switzerland on Sunday voted to ban new minarets from being built, with a clear majority of the population backing an initiative by far-right politicians.

To the dismay of the Muslim minority here, some 57.5 percent of the population and 22 out of 26 cantons voted to ban the towers or turrets attached on mosques from where Muslims are called to prayer.

Far-right politicians across Europe celebrated the results, while the Swiss government sought to assure the Muslim minority that a ban on minarets was "not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture."

The Swiss People's Party (SVP) -- Switzerland's biggest party -- had forced a referendum under Swiss regulations on the issue after collecting 100,000 signatures within 18 months from eligible voters.

They said that the minarets -- of which Switzerland has four -- were not architectural features with religious characteristics, but symbolised a "political-religious claim to power, which challenges fundamental rights."
Having won a double majority -- both in terms of cantons and absolute numbers -- from the 53 percent of the population who turned up to vote, the initiative will now be inscribed in the country's constitution.

"The Federal Council (government) respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted," said the government, which had firmly opposed the ban, in a statement.

Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said the result "reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies."

"These concerns have to be taken seriously... However, the Federal Council takes the view that a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies," she stressed.

She also sought to reassure the Muslim population, saying: "Today's popular decision is only directed against the construction of new minarets.

"It is not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture. Of that, the Federal Council gives its assurance."

But for the 400,000-strong Muslim community here, comprised mainly of ex-Yugoslav and Turkish migrants, the harm has been done.

"The most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote. Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community," said Farhad Afshar, who heads the Coordination of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland.

The Conference of Swiss Bishops also criticised the result, saying that it "heightens the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures."

Amnesty International said the minaret ban is a "violation of religious freedom, incompatible with the conventions signed by Switzerland."

"The initiators (of the referendum) have unfortunately managed to exploit fears towards Islam and stirred up xenophobic sentiments, it's regrettable," said Daniel Bolomey, who heads the Swiss chapter of the rights group.

In Morocco, a parliamentarian from the Justice and Development Islamist Party expressed surprise at the result.

"I think that Muslims in Switzerland, and those who live in the European Union, have a lot of work to do in communication to show their real face of tolerance and cohabitation of Islam," said Saad Eddine Othmani.

French far-right politician Marine Le Pen meanwhile welcomed the outcome.

The "elites should stop denying the aspirations and fears of the European people, who, without opposing religious freedom, reject ostentatious signs that political-religious Muslim groups want to impose, often at the limit of provocation," said the vice-president of the French National Front party.

Meanwhile, SVP Vice-President Yvan Perrin cheered the fact that his party had won the vote "without difficulty."

He told Radio Suisse Romande that Swiss companies should not worry about suffering from a possible backlash from Muslim countries.

"If our companies continue to make good quality products, they have nothing to worry about," he said.

Noting that the Swiss had made their decision after months of debate on the issue, he said: "

We won

respectably."

If you truly believed in Democracy, then you'd have no problem with political Islam or political Christianity. So you don't actually believe in Democracy?

1) Minarets are not even a part of Islam. They are a superfluous decoration, some would even say an innovation.

2) Although they think they're targetting "Islamists" and opposing them, they're in fact pleasing them. The "Islamists" are most likely to be the most against minarets themselves, and would probably have no problem with this decision.

3) The "moderates" are probably the only ones who are really attached to the idea of minarets, and so they'd perceive this as an attack on Islam, and it will make them more fertile for recruitment to the more "Islamist" viewpoint.

Hard to argue against the point about them getting crazier sprint, if the logic in Abu's post is any indication.

Quote:


So if I may paraphrase, to try and provide a little clarity;
Minarets are not part of Islam.
Hard line extremist Islamists, are against minarets.
Moderate muslims are pro Minarets(why this would be so if they are not part of Islam is another mystery we may have to wait for allah to explain)

So the moderate muslims, who like minarets, that are not Islamic, will be so outraged by restrictions placed on building minarets, that they will join with the people who do not like minarets at all, the Islamists.
They will then join forces to protest about this outrage???

But will they protest for or against minarets?
I am not at all sure they will know which way to jump, and perhaps it is the stress of all this indecision which leads them to wish to blow themselves up.
Maybe if they join the Islamists who do not like minarets, they could just blow up minarets, and leave the rest of us out of it. : )