I must admit I don't know any criminals, Muslims or Christians.  I have known the 91% of the law abiding Muslims. Which is more than you do, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...

As against your endless ad huminem insults, Soren?  I only resort to eye rolling and tut-tutting when faced with senseless Racism or Islamophobia.  Cut those out and I'll cut out the the eye rolling and tut-tutting.  It's up to you. If your man enough to face the real challenge.  Tut, tut, tut...

If the clown they handed that 'commission' with all its lovely and perks didn't dog whistle about the poor suffering Islamos - he wouldn't look like he was doing anything.

Is No Islamite - Is No Islamiteophobia.  We ship them all out and there is no problem.

Is No Commission - Is No Problem Report.... ship him out.

If the clown they handed that 'commission' with all its lovely and perks didn't dog whistle about the poor suffering Islamos - he wouldn't look like he was doing anything.

Is No Islamite - Is No Islamiteophobia.  We ship them all out and there is no problem.

Is No Commission - Is No Problem Report.... ship him out.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 7:07pm:

Change the law.

On October 21, the commission told a federal inquiry the definition of terrorism should no longer refer to attacks that have a religious motivation.

The commission made its suggestion at an inquiry being conducted by the government’s Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Jake Bright, who is a former deputy inspector-general of intelligence and security.

Bright’s researchers have already reviewed the outcomes in 83 terrorism cases and found that 95 per cent involved religion as at least one of the motives.

He published that finding in an issues paper that says all those cases involving religiously motivated terrorism referred to Islam or the accused’s distorted interpretation of Islam.

And that is what this issue is all about: does the disproportionate presence of Islam – or a distorted version of that religion – in terror cases mean the definition of terror is unfair to Muslims?

Or does it mean the neutral term “religious”, when used in these laws to describe one of the possible motivations for terrorism, is working as intended regardless of whether those convicted are mainly Muslims?

Leaders of the Islamic community are quite naturally distressed that the public image of their faith has been tarnished but they believe this is due to the law – despite the fact that it makes no reference to Islam.

Victoria’s Muslim Legal Network recognises that the terror laws do not explicitly equate Islam with religious motivations for terrorism, but it believes “the application on the ground has overwhelmingly targeted Muslims”.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/human-rights-commission-...


So if the law makes reference to "religiously motivated terrorism" Muslims feel "targeted" because ... er... Muslims have committed 93% of "religiously motivated terrorist acts".



"The law is framed in neutral terms. There is no doubt, however, that its application is having a disproportionate effect on terrorists who are Muslims.

If that is leaving a stigma on “particular religious communities”, as the commission puts its, the blame does not rest with the law."


Indeed.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 12:59pm:



Again, slowly:


So if the law makes reference to "religiously motivated terrorism" Muslims feel "targeted" because ... er... Muslims have committed 93% of "religiously motivated terrorist acts".



"The law is framed in neutral terms. There is no doubt, however, that its application is having a disproportionate effect on terrorists who are Muslims.

If that is leaving a stigma on “particular religious communities”, as the commission puts its, the blame does not rest with the law."


And:

If religiously motivated conduct is removed from the definition of terrorism, Segal suggested that an accused person might then argue that their motivation was indeed religious – and therefore outside the scope of terror laws.

Her argument is compelling.

And:

“The definition applies equally to all religious causes, as it does to all political and ideological causes,” the Attorney-General’s Department said in its submission.

Removing religiously motivated acts from the definition “risks the definition being interpreted more narrowly”, the department said.

At the moment, no religion receives special treatment. That should continue.




Religiously motivated terrorism should not be revised to remove religious motivation just because Muslims are responsible for 93 % of such terrorism.