Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

How can you stop radicalisation if you’re forbidden from asking what is doing the radicalising?

The Home Affairs Department is advertising for an organisation to help them stop people being radicalised online.

That’s a pretty important job.

It comes after ASIO boss Mike Burgess reported that 16 serious terrorist plots have been foiled in this country since the Bondi terror attack last December.

It also comes after reports that current deradicalisation programs are failing.

The Australian reported last week that of almost 300 radicalised individuals to have completed three months of a government-approved course, only 23 were less extreme.

Twenty-four were assessed as having become more radicalised.

Considering we’re paying $75m for that non-deradicalising deradicalisation course… that’s a pretty poor return.

The New Plan to Counter Terror

So I was interested to have a look at the tender documents for this latest government contract aimed at diverting potential terrorists.

The contract is called Countering Violent Extremism Online-Offline Diversions.

And according to the tender documents, the purpose is to…

“Identify and engage individuals on online platforms who exhibit behavioural indicators associated with vulnerability to radicalisation, terrorism or violent extremism and to facilitate their connection to appropriate support services.”

Okay… sounds like a good idea.

But then, in the third sentence of the tender documents, we read this…

“All diversion initiatives must be ideologically neutral and based on behavioural risk rather than any particular extremist ideology.”

Does that not seem odd to you?

We’re trying to stop people becoming terrorists… but apparently we’re not allowed to ask what ideas are turning them into terrorists.

That would be a bit like trying to stop a cult recruiting new members while insisting the investigators remain completely neutral about the existence of the cult.

Terrorism is not ideologically neutral behaviour.

Terrorism is violent behaviour motivated by ideology… whether political or religious.

So why would our government insist — as a first point of order — that a counter-radicalisation program promises to wear an ideological blindfold?

You can’t seriously counter radicalisation while pretending the thing doing the radicalising is somehow irrelevant.

Later in the document it specifies that whoever wins the contract must…

“Ensure all methodologies are ideologically neutral, proportionate and non-discriminatory.”

And there’s the clue. Or should I say red flashing light…

We don’t want an initiative aimed at turning people away from violent ideologies to think about any particular ideologies… in case it prompts charges of discrimination.

Good to know that when it comes to protecting the public from terrorism, the government’s first concern is to protect themselves from being accused of not treating everyone equally.

But here’s the thing…

Refusing to identify an ideology because some members of the wider community might feel targeted, is not the same thing as treating people equally.

Quite the opposite.

I would argue that the government is compromising the right of all Australians to be equally safe because they’re worried about the feelings of a minority of Australians.

Former ASIO Boss Agrees

Former ASIO boss Dennis Richardson has made precisely this point in a speech he gave to the Lowy Institute last night.

He said that media reports of antisemitic attacks after October 7 were deliberately muted for fear of being seen to put blame on a particular part of the community.

And protecting a particular part of the community from generalisations was deemed more important than protecting the public — even our own MPs — from violence by highlighting and condemning the problem.

“Some of the initial attacks on the electoral offices of MPs were not widely reported at times and in part because of the misguided concerns that it might inflame social tensions.

“As opposed to putting the spotlight on the conduct which deserved to be highlighted and condemned.”

And what was the result of such enlightened thinking?

More violence.

Richardson said…

“I tend to agree with those who argue that following 7 October we dropped the ball and failed to draw a line.

“I do believe, however, that a more forceful and consistent response to the blatant antisemitism we saw in the immediate aftermath of Seventh of October could well have set a different tone and drawn a clearer line between the acceptable and the unacceptable.”

So if we want to counter antisemitism, and if we want to stop future terrorist attacks, what should we do?

Well… as I understand Dennis Richardson… we should do exactly the opposite of what the Home Affairs Department is suggesting.

We should insist on removing the ideological blindfold.

Richardson told the Lowy Institute…

“The sources of antisemitism must be addressed in a sensible and mature way. Including open discussion about extremist Islamists without Australian Muslims as a whole feeling targeted.”

Bingo!

The way to beat radical Islam is not by pretending radical Islam doesn’t exist.

The way to counter extremist Islamists is to take off the ideological blindfold and openly discuss the fact that radical Islam is motivating terror attacks.

Two things on that…

First, we should be mature enough to have that discussion without painting every Muslim as being responsible for the actions of violent extremists.

Second, the Muslim community should be honest enough to acknowledge that radical Islamists aren’t springing up out of the Presbyterian community, they’re coming from the Muslim community… and so strong action needs to be taken without always being defensive.

It’s not collective blame for the problem. But it is collective responsibility for helping to solve the problem.

Not only would that help counter radicalisation and stop terrorism. It will also build trust with the rest of the community.

Here’s some more of Dennis Richardson last night…

“Mainstream Muslim leaders should be at the centre of any such discussion. Pretending the issue is not there simply leads to conspiracy theories and plays into extremists at the other end of the spectrum.”

None of that sounds like discrimination. It sounds like an adult conversation. And God knows we’re due for one.

The most powerful part of Dennis Richardson’s speech last night was when he reminded the audience that no-one was too worried about the feelings of Christians when rugby player Israel Folau was quite literally run out of the country for posting a religious message online about homosexuals.

And yet, Richardson said…

“In November 2023 an Islamic preacher posted on social media comments about Jewish people which in mid 2025 a federal court judge found to be fundamentally racist and antisemitic and devastatingly offensive and insulting yet when those comments were posted they received barely any media attention at all.

“And indeed I cannot find any media reference to those comments until some prominent Jewish Australians took the preacher to the federal court.”

The Double Standard

If our politicians, media and corporate elites felt confident that they could call out one Christian Pacific Islander without discriminating against all Christians, or Islanders… why do they seem so afraid to call out Muslim extremists for fear of discriminating against all Muslims?

Political correctness is supposed to prevent prejudice.

But when we become so fearful of naming a problem that we can’t properly diagnose the problem, political correctness stops being a safeguard against prejudice.

It becomes a blindfold.

And a blindfold is a particularly poor piece of safety equipment when someone is trying to find a terrorist.

That we haven’t had another terror attack since Bondi is more by chance than by design.

Because the threat is increasing while we’re patting ourselves on the back for groping about for solutions in the dark.

___

Republished with thanks to The James Macpherson Report. Image via screenshot of YouTube/News24.