TERRORISMReligious Motivation Needs to Stay in Our Terrorism Laws
Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke is right to reject the proposal to remove religious motivation from Australia’s terrorism laws. The proposal rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what those laws are designed to do. Australia’s counterterrorism laws do not regulate extremism. They regulate the progression from extremist belief to politically motivated violence.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke is right to reject the proposed removal of religious motivation from Australia’s terrorism laws. The proposal by the nation’s special envoy to combat Islamophobia, Aftab Malik, rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what those laws are designed to do.
Malik assumes Australia’s counterterrorism laws regulate extremism. They do not. They regulate the progression from extremist belief to politically motivated violence. Confusing the two would make Australia’s counterterrorism framework weaker, not fairer.
Burke responded to Malik on Monday by saying he was ‘comfortable with the definition that we use.’ We all should be.
Australia does not criminalize extremist beliefs. People are free to hold radical political opinions, controversial religious convictions and offensive ideological views so long as they do not harm others. That is a hallmark of a liberal democracy. The criminal law intervenes against conduct that prepares, facilitates, finances, supports or commits terrorism. Democracies punish violence and its preparation, not ideas.
But that distinction explains why terrorism is treated differently from other serious crimes. Every murder is an act of violence. Not every murder is terrorism. Terrorism seeks something more. It uses or threatens to use violence to intimidate the public or coerce governments in pursuit of political, ideological or religious objectives. Motivation therefore performs an essential legal and operational function. It helps distinguish terrorism from other forms of serious criminal violence.
Malik made his proposal in a submission to an inquiry into overhauling Australia’s counterterrorism framework. He argues Australia should adopt an ideology-agnostic framework that focuses on harm rather than political, ideological or religious motivation. The proposal sounds appealing because it promises neutrality and greater social cohesion. And no one in Australia should be targeted because of their religion, race or ideology. But in fact, the proposal confuses a social cohesion challenge with a counterterrorism challenge.
Removing ideology from legislation and focusing on harm would risk upending the aim of counterterrorism to prevent violence. And it wouldn’t prevent the motivation for the crime being identified and publicized in our transparent democracy. Trying to pretend that motivation isn’t part of the problem would actually just create greater cynicism, distrust and social divide.
