T

he Australian Federal Police'€™s raids on the Logan Islamic Centre Book Store and subsequent arrests of two men for allegedly providing funds to Jabhat al-Nusra and planning to engage in hostile acts in Syria demonstrates yet again why our terrorism laws are biased against some groups and not others.

The Australian government deems certain groups to be terrorist organizations in accordance with recommendations that must be approved by the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The list of organizations defined as terrorist mounts to 20, of which Jabhat al-Nusra is one.

Our attorney general has been touring the country trying to sell his latest batch of terror laws to Muslim communities, with limited success. Both he and Prime Minister Tony Abbott have been leading a campaign of fear mongering in the media against alleged jihadists traveling from Australia to conflicts in Syria and Iraq. The timing of the police'€™s actions in Logan is fortuitous for the government because the public will be led to believe yet again that radical Muslims are rampant in our communities.

What the public won'€™t be told, however, is that of the 20 organizations listed by the attorney-general, not one is a state. Not Bashir al-Assad'€™s Syria, Kim Jong-un'€™s North Korea, Robert Mugabe'€™s Zimbabwe, or a host of other nations whose actions would, if they were not nation states, constitute terrorist acts. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently authorized intensive air strikes on Gaza, resulting in the deaths of more than 2000 Palestinian civilians, including 500 children. Was this not a grossly disproportionate set of terrorist actions?

The Australian government is playing politics again when it comes to terrorism and it is doing it for the worst motives '€” to instill fear to push through draconian anti-Muslim laws. The government defines certain organizations as terrorist but doesn'€™t allow for nation states that commit similar heinous acts to be similarly defined. The result is a national criminal justice system that targets certain groups and not others. For example an Australian of Syrian descent can return to his country and freely join Assad'€™s army or contribute to Assad'€™s coffers and will not be prosecuted, but join a jihadist group or provide them with funding and look out.

A criminal justice system that not only allows but promotes such one-sided prosecutions based on politically motivated definitions cannot be allowed to stand.

It is not only biased against certain groups, including Muslims, but it also ensures that the public narrative in the media is similarly confined to these legal fictions.

Adam Bonner
Brogo, Australia