Table of Contents
Credit where it’s due: the swivel-eyed fanatics of Islam know how to play gullible Westerners like an oud. Especially the pathological virtue signallers of the ‘human rights’ establishment. As a quote that is no less accurate for being apocryphal says, “When Muslims are in the minority they are very concerned with minority rights. When they are in the majority there are no minority rights.”
Former Bush ally, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha likewise claimed that: “Minorities don’t interest [a Muslim].” This is not entirely true, though: minorities are of great interest to Muslims when it’s them and they can leverage their ‘minority’ status to manipulate cretinous Western lefties.
Case in point: the ‘ISIS brides’. These are not helpless victims: they’re women who saw videos of slave auctions and sadistic executions and couldn’t wait to get their slice of the action. They willingly renounced the West, quite often the countries of their birth, for a worse-than-mediaeval caliphate. When it all crashed in flames, they went scurrying back to the very ‘infidels’ they had so violently rejected – and the pathological idiots of the ‘human rights’ industry fell right for it.
The most common argument from these shameless grifters is, ‘but we’re Australian citizens…’
Let’s leave aside that they willingly and violently rejected their Australian citizenship, well… so what? Does that mean we have to burden innocent Australians with not just the obvious risk of turning loose violent fanatics in the community, but the multi-million-dollar tax burden of vainly trying to keep watch on them?
In fact, Australia has every right to tell them to sod off and stay right where they chose to be.
Australian citizens could be indefinitely banned from returning from overseas under domestic counterterrorism laws, experts have told the ABC.
Earlier this week a group of 34 women and children, who are Australian citizens affiliated with Islamic State militants, attempted to return to Australia from a Syrian refugee camp.
One of the women has been barred from returning after being given a temporary exclusion order (TEO) under Australian counterterrorism laws.
Despite the name, the ban need not be entirely ‘temporary’.
TEOs were created in 2019 to allow the Australian government to ban people from returning from overseas if they are deemed a national security threat.
Under the legislation, Australia's home affairs minister can issue a TEO if they believe it could prevent someone from carrying out, supporting, or being trained to carry out an act of terrorism.
Of course, that relies on the willingness of the home affairs minister to keep terrorist fanatics out of the country. Our current home affairs minister is Tony Burke, who occupies the most Muslim-dense seat in the nation. And it shows.
Most – if not all – of the 11 women in the group attempting to return to Australia this week were married to men who had relocated to Syria and Iraq to join the terrorist organisation known as IS […]
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said only one of the women has met the legal threshold to be issued a TEO, “according to advice from security agencies”.
More like, advice from his electoral bean-counters.
An exclusion order can be issued for up to two years on anyone aged 14 and above.
For two years – at a time. And the subject still has to apply for a ‘return permit’.
While the law imposes time limits on TEOs, there is nothing preventing another exclusion order from being issued after the first one expires.
The two-year deadline “does not prevent the making of another temporary exclusion order in relation to the same person”, according to section 10 of the act.
To top it all off, under section 17 return permits can be revoked “on the Minister’s own initiative”.
What this means practically is that Australian citizens could, technically, be banned from returning indefinitely.
Don’t threaten the rest of us with a good time.
And don’t bet against the judicial activist class taking it on themselves to decide they run the country, not a bunch of people actually elected by the voters to do that job.
In 2022 the Australian High Court ruled on a case in which the government had stripped an Australian-Turkish dual citizen of his Australian citizenship after he had been convicted — then pardoned — of terror-related offences in Syria.
The High Court found taking away the man’s citizenship was unconstitutional as it was a punishment which could only be ordered by a court, and not the government.
The same High Court, remember, who summarily ordered the government to turn hundreds of non-citizen criminals, including paedophiles, rapists, hit-men and wife-murderers loose on the community, which ended exactly as you’d expect it to.
Not that the High Court beaks took the least responsibility when the scum they’d ordered set free went right back to their raping, bashing, child-molesting ways.
Another element complicating the Al-Roj case would be if the woman subject to the TEO had young children, [Australian National University international law expert Don Rothwell] said.
“That then raises the issue as to what impact this will have upon the children of this woman,” he said.
“Will those children be able to return to Australia with other members of the group, or will they be forced to stay behind with their mother in the camp?”
I have a fair idea what most of my fellow Australians would say.
