Vic
Gold Member
Offline
Australian Politics
Posts: 8518
Melbourne Victoria
Gender: 
|
The uncredited comments below raise some important points. If we are to have a RC let’s make sure we get the TOR right and get the right person to head it.
"Alright, isn’t this just adorable. Out pops Josh Frydenberg, a bloke who, packed his bags, walked off into the sunset after getting booted by the electorate into oblivion and yet somehow still thinks he’s the project manager for national trauma.
Mate, you resigned. You’re not in Parliament. You don’t get to bark orders from the cheap seats like you’re still running Treasury.
And yet here he is, unhappy with who might lead a probe into the Bondi attack, because apparently the only acceptable outcome is one that funnels everything neatly into a single lane. Anti-Semitism. Full stop. No wider questions. No uncomfortable context. No broader examination of violence, radicalisation, or grievance.
Here’s the problem. If you’re serious about understanding what makes people snap, what turns grievance into mass murder, you don’t use a bloody microscope. You use a wide-angle lens.
Why is there no equal panic about Islamophobia?
Why no serious national reckoning about anti-Muslim violence, given Brenton Tarrant murdered 51 people while they were praying?
Why didn’t we demand a Royal Commission into what radicalised him, what media ecosystems fed him, what grievance politics lit the fuse?
And what about Martin Bryant? An atheist. No religion. No ideology. Just rage, alienation, and access to weapons. Where was the demand then to interrogate the psychology of mass violence itself?
See the pattern? We only zoom in when it suits a political narrative.
If the goal is actually prevention, not posturing, then the question isn’t “which religion is being targeted”, it’s “why do people get to a point where they’re willing to murder strangers”. That conversation is messy. It cuts across race, religion, ideology, masculinity, media, geopolitics, and social breakdown. Which is exactly why some people don’t want it.
And let’s be crystal clear, criticising political Zionism, or the actions of the Israeli state under Benjamin Netanyahu, is not the same thing as attacking Judaism. Conflating the two is intellectually lazy and politically convenient. It shuts down debate by branding dissent as hatred, and it does absolutely nothing to keep anyone safe.
If you cannot distinguish between a religion and a nationalist political ideology, maybe you’re not qualified to lecture the country on nuance.
So when Frydenberg pops up saying he’s “concerned” about who runs an inquiry, here’s the blunt response. You don’t get to dictate the scope. You don’t get to narrow the lens. You don’t get to turn a national tragedy into a single-issue pressure campaign.
This isn’t about one community versus another. It’s about violence, radicalisation, grievance, and the social conditions that let it fester. All of it. Everywhere.
Australia doesn’t need another performative inquiry designed to protect political comfort zones. It needs honesty. And honesty starts by admitting that hatred doesn’t belong to one religion, one group, or one headline. It belongs to a system that keeps refusing to look at itself properly."
|
Forum
Pages: 
