Page 3270 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We should not be too worried that we might offend the rights and liberties of radical and extremist minority groups. We just heard the Chief Minister criticising Dr Nelson for tackling this very issue. We should not be concerned about challenging such groups that sympathise with terrorism, and there are people in the community across this country who do. There are not too many in the ACT, but there are across the eastern seaboard of this country, and no community is immune. The inability to tackle this issue is what contributes to intolerance and disrespect in times of unease and confusion.
If the government does not take a stand against extremist elements—and the government is on record as absolutely proving that—members of the community often take it upon themselves to do so, which breeds deeper levels of mistrust and unrest. Of course, we cannot tolerate that either. We cannot allow such vacuums to exist that cause people to be so concerned that they carry out stupid actions against minorities in our community. But that is what happens when you have a failure of leadership to take on those sorts of challenges.
I think that this motion is really an attempt by the government to deflect attention from the fact that it is unable to significantly protect the ACT community from any sort of terrorist threat, if one were to emerge, and instead put the onus back on the community to bear the brunt of the responsibility for the government’s failings. This is simply an opportunity for the Chief Minister to do a bit of federal government bashing and for others to get off their chest their frustrations about Australian foreign policy.
Indeed, Mr Stanhope’s insulting response to the increased tightening of antiterrorist laws in the wake of the London bombings was about his concern for the human rights and protection of those who might be singled out for their Islamist extremist behaviour, rather than for the protection of the community at large. What about the rights of those people amongst our population who would be affected by acts of terrorism and who deserve to be protected from those who choose to be sympathetic to terrorist acts or to support or carry them out?
Should they not have the right to feel safe and feel that their public representatives have done everything they can to protect the community? Should they not feel respected and tolerated by their own Chief Minister, instead of being castigated for what this Labor government claims is a lack of tolerance towards dangerous extremists? When people question the motives of radical Muslims, why are their rights to do so not tolerated by Labor?
Most Australians do tolerate and respect people of all faiths, religions and cultures. So the debate we are having here now to defend the Stanhope government’s claims that tolerance and respect have gone out the window is perhaps a little bit insulting to the greater majority. The real lack of tolerance comes from the Chief Minister’s failure to consider the human rights of the hardworking, honest, tolerant and respectful majority, Muslim, Christian or otherwise.
The Australian government is no doubt in possession of secret information to which not all are privy. In fact, the Chief Minister would be more privy to it than I am. They and other state and territory leaders, well advised by sensible and experienced people, moved
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .