Posts by MurrayHunter:

DMCA Abuse: How corporations are using US copyright law to harass and silence individuals

September 24th, 2016

 

 

By Murray Hunter.

 

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was unanimously passed by the United States Senate on 12th October 1998, and signed into law by President Clinton on 28th October the same year. The Act was put into law to interpret and enact two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties which dealt with copyright circumvention and providing Internet service providers (ISP) and online service providers (OSP) safe harbour against copyright liability, provided they meet specific requirements.

The DMCA criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly called digital rights management) that control access to copyrighted works. Further, the DMCA also criminalizes the act of circumventing any access control, even if there is no actual infringement of the copyrighted material itself, i.e., providing a mere link to a third site where suspected copyright material exists is criminal.

The Act has extended the reach of US law beyond its traditional geographical jurisdiction. Moreover, the Act has given copyright right holders a “lethal weapon” to utilize against parties who allegedly breach their claimed copyright. That is, the ability to claim copyright breach directly against any individual. Further, the Act enables copyright holders to force ISPs and OSPs to take down any identified alleged infringing material immediately from any internet site.

However the Act doesn’t give respondents any recourse against a DMCA takedown notice before any material is taken down by the ISPs and OSPs.

Through the DMCA takedown notice procedure a copyright holder becomes a prosecuting judge. A copyright holder need only serve a takedown notice on an ISP or OSP to take down any third party’s material from the internet to have it instantly removed.

The rules and procedures of this process are prescribed under section 512 of the Act. ISPs and OSPs are given immunity from prosecution from both the copyright holders and respondents to takedown notices, if they strictly adhere to the takedown and counter-takedown notice procedures prescribed in Section 512.

This ‘safe harbor’ provision gives ISPs and OSPs incentive to cooperate with copyright holders who are in the majority corporations. Section 512 even exempts ISPs and OSPs from ‘good faith’ in the removal of any material, i.e., they may know the takedown notice is flawed in some way, providing the procedures are followed. In effect ISPs and OSPs become the agents of the copyright holders and aren’t obliged to consider the interests of their users, except through facilitating the counter-takedown notice procedure.

As mentioned above, the material identified in any takedown notice must be removed from the site identified. The respondent can only respond to the copyright holder through issuing a counter notice which identifies the person who put up the material, submits to the jurisdiction of a US court, and subjects the respondent to the laws of perjury in the response. It is the responsibility of the ISP or OSP to pass on the counter notice to the copyright holder and if legal action hasn’t been taken against the respondent in the takedown notice within 10-14 days, the ISP/OSP may reinstate the original material to their website.

The DMCA takedown notice procedure deems a respondent of a takedown notice guilty. There is no provision for a hearing from the respondent to either the purported copyright holder or ISP/OSP before the material is removed. At a minimum any material subject to a takedown notice cannot reappear for at least 14 days.

The takedown notice procedure is dreadfully biased towards the purported copyright holder. Section 512 gives copyright holders protection and power over respondents to takedown notices. For example, unlike respondents who decide to file a counter notice, the copyright holder issuing the takedown notice in the first place, need not submit itself to the jurisdiction of the US legal system. The issuer of a DMCA takedown notice may be, and is in many cases, a foreign corporation with no intention to submit itself to the jurisdiction of US law. The corporation can use the DMCA for convenience to rid the internet of some material at its own whim, where it is almost practically impossible by a respondent to make legal claim for issuing a false takedown notice.

If a respondent of a DMCA takedown notice takes a copyright holder to court, there is no guarantee that the issuer of the notice will submit itself to US law, unless it is already a US legal entity. Even within the US itself, some issuers of takedown notices have escaped jurisdiction of the US court system.

Sadly, US case law has tended to protect the issuers of false takedown notices. In 2004, the decision in Rossi V. the Motion Picture Association of America found that the DMCA takedown notice issuer had to actually know their claim was false and not merely lazy or mistaken for a respondent to succeed in their claim against a party who issued a false takedown notice.

Further, the issuer of a DMCA takedown notice bears little responsibility for false notices. Although Section 512 (f) makes the issuer of any false notice liable for damages, the cost, time and effort to take a copyright holder to court for issuing a false notice according to current case law in the United States would most likely only compensate the respondent for his or her legal costs in direct relation to the takedown notice and minimal damages.

There is nothing within Section 512 that restrains copyright holders from issuing DMCA takedown notices through the principle of fair use. The legally enshrined principle of fair use allows for the copying of small amounts of material for comment, criticism, or parody. Such use can be done without the need to get permission from the copyright holder. Section 1201 (c) states the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, and defences, doesn’t allow the use of fair use for defence of a DMCA takedown notice. Fair use is not exempted as a circumvention action and has thus not exempted from criminality under DMCA.

This weakness in the DMCA has allowed for the exponential growth of DMCA takedown notices since the Act became law almost 18 years ago.

Twitter receives about 10,000 DMCA takedown notices per month which has grown 58% from the year before. WordPress receives about 700-800 DMCA takedown notices per month, up 55% from the year before. Google receives about 80,000 DMCA takedown notices per month, which has grown also around 50% in volume from the previous year. If the fair use provision was upheld in section 512, the number of takedown notices would be far less and more manageable by ISPs and OSPs to handle. Instead we are reaching a situation where free speech, expression, and even creativity are being stifled by the DMCA.

Earlier this year Jennifer Urban and Brianna Schofield from University of California, with Joe Karaganis of Columbia University found in a 160 page in-depth study looking at 100 million notices, that more than 32% of DMCA takedown notices were either flawed or had characteristics which raised questions about their validity. This equates to more than 35 million notices. This somewhat agrees with Twitter’s own data indicating that around 33% of notices it receives are ineffective. WordPress found 60% of the DMCA takedown notices it receives as being ineffective.

One very recent case that illustrates the above issues and highlights several sinister aspects of DMCA abusers’ behaviour relates to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its Legal Director Howard Stupp. Howard Stupp is well known for his vigilance in protecting IOC intellectual property, and even made a ban on the use of short GIFs on social media during the recent Olympic Games.

Stupp instituted an automated system which systematically searched the internet for key words. The system was so sophisticated that winners’ names were added as key words to pick out new postings during the games. However what was apparently absent was any human interface to ensure that the system didn’t mistakenly highlight postings that didn’t breach IOC copyright. As a result in one such case, a DMCA takedown notice was sent to Twitter claiming a posting had breached IOC copyright by showing a GIF of the recent games, when in fact the Tweet was posted weeks before the games and GIF was of another sporting event not under the jurisdiction of the IOC.



A partial screen shot of the DMCA takedown notice issued by Howard Stupp

Like the example above, the use of automated systems leads to questions about accuracy and fairness in due process of copyright holders issuing DMCA takedown notices. Human interface is required to ensure copyright holders exercise a duty of care. Automated search systems have turned the DMCA takedown system into a massive fishing expedition where individuals who breach copyright may be caught along with a large group of innocent individuals.

In the case above, the recipient of the DMCA takedown notice issued by the IOC attempted to contact the organization through the email given in the takedown notice (The issuer of a DMCA notice doesn’t have to state their address like the requirement for respondents to do so) to point out their mistake, but this was to no avail. Repeated emails were just left with silence.  

The fact that the IOC refuses to enter into any correspondence with respondents indicates the principle of ‘good faith’ is not being adhered to.

The IOC, like many other corporations not registered in the United States are difficult to actually locate and thus beyond the jurisdiction of US law. This makes it extremely difficult to take any legal action against parties who issue false DMCA takedown notices. The DMCA takedown notice system is allowing people like Howard Stupp to act without any duty of care and legal responsibility.  The IOC must be aware that some of its DMCA are false through mistaken identification of content (i.e., no one has checked the links the automated system has identified).

Organizations like the IOC will continue to issue frivolous takedown notices in a contemptuous and arrogant manner, and ISP/OSPs like Twitter will continue to support large corporations against their own users because of the nature of the current takedown and counter notice procedures in section 512. These are all massive abuses of the system which must be corrected.

There are numerous other well reported abuses which indicate the DMCA is being used by corporations for other motives than seeking out copyright infringement.  Warner Bros filed DMCA takedown notices with Google as a tool to takedown websites which would lead to possible infringing content, rather than infringing content on websites as the DMCA specifies. Sony has been trying to obtain license fees on the fair use of their copyrighted material. A web security firm used the DMCA takedown system to silence a vocal critic of its services in the guise of copyright infringement. The London Sunday Times sent a DMCA takedown notice to eliminate a critical article written in The Intercept. Some organizations have issued DMCA takedown notices against bloggers just to find out their identity.  The DMCA takedown notice procedure is cheaper to utilize against critics than using defamation laws, which many corporations are taking advantage of.  People with a grudge use the DMCA takedown notice procedure to attack and force suspension of their social media accounts.

The safe harbour provision of Section 512 makes the ISP and OSP willing collaborators with organizations which use DMCA takedown notices as a tool for other agenda that the Act was not intended for.

DMCA takedown notices only allege breaches of copyright infringement. DMCA takedown notices do not prove cases of copyright infringement.

This is a denial of natural justice where the takedown and counter notice procedure assumes guilt before innocence, contrary to common law.

With the large number of DMCA takedown notices coming in to ISP/OSPs, it is time consuming and costly for these organizations to deal with each individual notice. They are doing the work of copyright holders and bearing all the costs involved.

The unbalanced onuses placed upon the recipient in filing a counter notice, and fear of the costs of defending any potential action in a court of law is the probable reason why there are very few counter notices. DMCA takedown notices, as can be seen by the example above are intimidating to many people who receive them. Further, liability is unbalanced and favours copyright holders. Many corporations don’t fear suits as they aren’t within the jurisdiction of a US court unlike the respondents who must formally put themselves under US court jurisdiction in filing a counter notice.  

Large corporations like Sony, Disney, Comcast, Viacom, and others used automated systems to issue DMCA takedown notices which often misidentify material. This is an injustice upon innocent parties who are at risk of having their social media accounts closed if they receive three takedown notices under the multiple offender provision of the DMCA.

The DMCA takedown notice procedure has harassed many internet and social media users, silenced critics of corporations, and disrupted people running blogs. Section 512 (f) is toothless in restraining corporations using automated software and takedown notices go on ‘fishing expeditions’ to seek out copyright infringers. Innocent peoples’ rights are being violated and in some cases damage done to them where no practical recourses exist to remedy the injustice. The Howard Stupps of the corporations are free to run their agendas disregarding the principles of ‘good faith’ and fairness. They appear immune from responsibility for their reckless actions.

Section 512 has failed to protect people from false takedown notices and allowed the DMCA to be abused by corporations for their own ends. The use of the DMCA to silence critics and eliminate articles written by journalists in all probability if challenged in a US court could even be found unconstitutional due to its incongruence with the 1st Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech and the press.

Let’s hope the US Copyright Office corrects these shortfalls of the DMCA in its current review of the legislation and considers the introduction of statutory damages and/or bonds to decrease the issuing of false notices.

 

Comments Off on DMCA Abuse: How corporations are using US copyright law to harass and silence individuals

What would an Islamic State terror attack mean for Malaysia?

February 28th, 2016

By Murray Hunter.

 


With the Malaysian media reporting that members of the Islamic State (IS) within Malaysia are planning their own attacks, what would be the consequences should an attack actually occur?

IN the wake of the attacks in Paris and Jakarta, there have numerous reports about police arresting suspected IS terrorists, who were planning, or were even on the way, to undertake terrorist attacks. The Malaysian Federal Territories Minister Tengku Adnan also indicated specific crowded public places that are potential IS terrorist targets.

Writers in the local media are telling us that terrorist attacks are increasing in frequency and that ‘aggressive Islamic organizations’ sympathizing with IS are trying to establish regional cells in the Philippines, Indonesia, and in Malaysia as well.

We are even told that the Katibah Nusantara, a military unit in Syria loyal to IS manned primarily by Indonesians and Malaysians, has made terror threats in Malaysia. According to Free Malaysia Today, earlier this morning, the alleged mastermind of the Jakarta terrorist attack, Bahrom Naim, who is a founding member of Khatibah Nusantara, was on the verge of activating sleeper cells to carry out attacks in Malaysia.

However, we are told by the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi that there is a need for a comprehensive approach to tackle terrorism in Malaysia. Zahid is putting terrorism at the top of the agenda by saying that suicide bombers could be disguised as anyone, including tourists, office workers, ordinary people, factory workers, and even preachers. This is being corroborated, with the Malaysian Police Special Branch Director Mohamad Fuzi Harun saying that the police are ready to face the Islamic State threat in the country, where all measures are being taken to ensure this threat will not become a reality.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak justified the introduction of the National Security Council (NSC) Bill by telling Malaysians that they would not have any civil liberties under a country controlled by the Islamic State.

So what would a terrorist attack on Malaysian soil mean? What would be the reaction by authorities? What would be the consequences?

The National Security Council (NSC) could potentially be activated. In fact, to some extent it already has. The National Security Council has already approved military forces to be used for joint patrols with police in public places.

The NSC is chaired Najib and is part of the Prime Minister’s Department. According to the National Security Council Bill 2015, which was rushed through the Malaysian Parliament, the prime minister has full power to declare any security area within the country, where security forces can arrest without warrant, stop and search, enter and search any premises, take possession of land, buildings, or vehicles, where no legal means can be taken to oppose such actions.

One of the interesting things about the National Security Council Bill is that the authority to act bypasses the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and puts direct authority in the hands of the prime minister, who takes advice from an eight-member security council.

As the Malaysian Bar Council says, this would lurch Malaysia into an ‘authoritarian Government’, which could act without all the checks and balances built into the system of government via the constitution.

This scenario has been alluded to by the prime minister in his recent statement.

Sceptics at this time would be very quick to point out that in the current political environment full of scandals that lead straight to the door of the prime minister himself, that the NSC could be used as a tool to maintain his grip on power.

The author has witnessed the aftermath of ‘terrorist attacks’ in neighbouring countries to Malaysia. Of the half a dozen he has witnessed, about half the bombs were made to scare, rather than main or kill. Some were actually very small events, but led to strong reactions by authorities. Sometimes the real perpetrators were not who they appeared to be.

At the risk of becoming a subscriber to conspiracy theories, some comments should be made about some of the latest terror attacks within the region. Although the Bali and Marriot bombings in Indonesia were bloody, violent events, the latest Jakarta bombing has attracted some comments.

An arms expert made the comment that the actual explosions didn’t appear to have the shock wave associated with a bomb explosion, and seemed to appear more like a smoke bomb going off. At the very least they appeared to be very amateurish nitrate-diesel based bombs with a very low intensity. Some eye witnesses mentioned off the record that it appeared to be a staged managed event, where there were some reports that a drill was actually going on at the time.

There are still a lot of questions that remain to be answered about the Jakarta bombings, and who is actually behind them, before major shifts in internal security are made. Is the frequency of these acts of terror actually rising, or does it just appear that way?

Terrorism is even more dangerous when it gets intermingled with government agenda. We saw this in 9/11 with Iraq.

Unfortunately, the increase of authoritarian government has not been shown to make the world any safer.

.

Comments Off on What would an Islamic State terror attack mean for Malaysia?

Why there is no academic freedom in Malaysia

October 5th, 2015

 

By Murray Hunter.

 



The Malaysian Government is trying to develop the country into an education hub. Most universities seek awards of excellence and to get their institutions into the rankings.

However, even with these aspirations, Malaysia’s overall rankings have been slipping over the last decade, while many other universities within the region have been rising dramatically.

As a consequence Malaysian universities have been open to both domestic and international criticism, which has often resulted in successive ministers of education defend their standing.

The Government is pursuing new reforms and just recently released the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 with much fanfare. However something conspicuously absent from these proposed reforms is more academic freedom.

Academic freedom of expression is extremely low in Malaysia.

There are two parts to the concept. The first is about institutional freedom where a university should be autonomous, with full accountability, where the university administration is free to make independent decisions about mission, governance, hiring of academic leaders, academic and non-academic staff, selecting students, and introducing new programs and courses.

The second aspect is individual academic freedom, where there is a climate promoting freedom to teach what an academic thinks is right, freedom of expression within the public domain on issues, freedom to associate with others, with integrity.

In Malaysian public universities today, both staff and students are formally forbidden, except with permission from their respective vice chancellors to express opinions publicly, write about, or organize or participate in forums about politics, religion (particularly Islam), and education. They are not allowed to criticize their own institutions.

The ministry has given directives that that no staff should talk to the media on sensitive issues without permission. This ban does not just include the areas mentioned above, but also environmental issues like haze. The Malaysian Bar Association claims that this directive breaches Section 10 of the Malaysian Constitution guaranteeing free speech.

In addition to the formal directives, informal bans exist on research and discussion about ethnic conflict and local corruption, especially if research findings might raise questions about government policy.

Sanctions for violating these rules and norms range from rebukes from administrators, to the loss or jobs through the non-renewal of work contracts, to prosecution in the court system through sedition laws, etc. The use of teaching contracts is particularly powerful in curbing free speech of academics, where academics fear they will not get extensions if they don’t carry favour with administrators.

Malaysian academics even need permission from the vice chancellor to attend any conference and travel outside their own state within Malaysia.

All university staff and students are required to swear allegiance to the BN Government, rather than the constitution of Malaysia or the Agong (King). They must promise to follow directions of their immediate superiors and the government of the day without question or criticism.

Some academics tried to oppose the swearing of allegiance to the BN Government a few years ago to no avail.

The fact is today Malaysian public universities don’t make independent decisions about their respective missions, hiring of academic leaders, and recruitment of staff, student intake, and the introduction of new programs and courses. This is still completely in the hands of the ministry.

The Education Ministry strictly controls what courses any university may offer, and all curriculum must be approved prior to teaching. The ministry has even specified some compulsory subjects that must be taken by all students in Malaysia such as Asian Civilization and Malay Studies. Some argue these subjects are controversial in the religious views put forward.

Malaysian universities are part of the apparatus of government rather than being an independent source of ideas and policy.

There have been numerous cases where students and academics have faced intimidation and other sanctions, including prosecution for expression in the media or organizing events which university administrators don’t like.

Recently at the International Islamic University near Kuala Lumpur, two students were given a one year suspension each for organizing a meeting on campus where an opposition politician was invited to speak.

Earlier this year, Dr. Khoo Ying Hooi, a senior lecturer in the Department of International and Strategic Studies at University Malaya was put under criminal investigation for possible violation of defamation laws, after she wrote an article in The Malaysian Insider titled “Who Owns the Police?”

Late in 2014, eight students from University Malaya faced disciplinary proceedings for their involvement in a rally on campus for the then Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Dr. Abdul Aziz Bari, a law professor at University Selangor (UNISEL), was charged with sedition over his statements and articles written about the constitutional limitations and powers of the Sultan of Selangor.

Another academic Dr. Azmi Sharom, a law lecturer from University Malaya was also charged with sedition after commenting publicly about the constitutional crisis in Selangor.

A group of students from University Malaya last year faced disciplinary action after they protested against the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) during a visit by US President Obama to the campus.

Just recently all staff and students were warned not to attend the Bersih 4 rally held around Malaysia on 29-30th August.

And the list goes on.

Most academics fear the consequences and repercussions of speaking out about public issues, unless their views are favourable to the BN Government. Cooperation with opposition held governments in Kelantan and Penang is also taboo. Most academics choose to remain silent

However one of the more disturbing things is that some local academics go out of their way to apologise for the lack of academic freedom in pseudo research, where for example, the issue with academic freedom with academic responsibility would be linked, making an underlying assumption that academics cannot be trusted to be academically responsible.

This is probably best epitomized by a comment made by a Malaysian academic “Alang Ahmad” on the Scholars and Researchers for Academic Freedom in Malaysia (SARAF) on Facebook, where he said….

“Sorry, we UiTM lecturers owe our livelihood to the BN Govt. Besides unity of Malays has greater importance than the silly wishes of some juveniles”  Nov. 25 2011.

Some academics have followed their ‘superiors’ agenda by creating research that supports government ideas and points of view like Ketuanan Melayu. Such a case was where the academic from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (USM) used an extended concept of ‘Nam Tien’, a term used to refer to the migration from the Red river delta to the Mekong Delta during the 11th and 18th Century to argue that the Malay race has for thousands of years been a target of invasion, due to envy by other races.

Even more disturbing is the reluctance of university academics to speak out against their superiors, leaving the door open for university management to mismanage and flaunt the system financially. The author was told by a state director of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) that he has tried for years to get university staff to report their superiors for corruption, but been unable to get anybody to stand forward and make a formal report.

Dr. Ibrahim Ahmad, the deputy vice chancellor if INTI-Laureate International University claims that the Malays are ‘cultural prisoners’ and are not courageous in speaking out due to the norms of society. He goes on to say that this weakness is allowing extremism to creep in and preventing Malays advancing.

Public universities in Malaysia are heavily politicized. All vice chancellors are selected by the Ministry of Education and personally appointed by the minister. Some vice chancellors have close connections with the Biro Tata Negara (BTN), an organization that has been heavily criticized for its villainous brainwashing, racism, and propaganda. It appears the most important qualification of a vice chancellor is his/her loyalty to the BN Government, rather than academic and administrative abilities.

In addition, very few deans and office bearers are elected by lecturers within the faculties, so these leaders tend not to be accountable to their staff, giving them wide powers. These people tend to be loyal to their superiors and thus academics are under close scrutiny of their activities.

According to the highly cited US expert on education Dr. Philip Altmbach, it is difficult to see how a fully developed higher education system can be developed without academic freedom.

In the light of what Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s promise to give universities more autonomy, intellectual and academic freedom should be issues at the top of the list. However with the current crackdown on free speech, academic freedom is only likely to receive lip service in the near future.

If good policy is going to be scripted, corruption fought, and critical thinking and creativity developed in Malaysia’s universities, a paradigm shift in academic freedom is necessary.

The academic values of autonomy, freedom of expression, and integrity have been largely ignored, at the plight of university standards in Malaysia.

Although Malaysia has globalized its education system, it is still encumbered by Malay cultural norms that are preventing evolution of higher education institutions to their best potential.

In wider society, if academic freedom doesn’t exist, how can freedoms exist elsewhere within the nation?

This is the dilemma hindering the potential of the country to progress today.

The lack of academic freedom weakens the national intellect, which can be witnessed by Malaysia’s relative decline among its neighbours over the last decade.

Malaysian universities may have modern infrastructure, but they are hindered from growing by the current inability of academics to speak out.

Comments Off on Why there is no academic freedom in Malaysia

Muslim Australia and the search for a solution to the “War on Terror”

August 12th, 2015

 

 

By Murray Hunter.

 

 



 

There are almost 500,000 Muslims in Australia, with 400 mosques serving them. According to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) 2012-103 Annual Report to the Australian Parliament, there are over 200 terror investigations going on. This infers that massive government resources are being ploughed into monitoring and surveillance of the Muslim community in Australia, as four Australian Prime Ministers have admitted.

There appears to be an insecurity on the part of lawmakers and successive governments about Muslim citizens in the Australian community. At first it was about immigration, and violence, which grew into terrorism after 9/11. The evidence used to support policy has not been accurate according to prominent Australian Tim Costello.

Official government comment and stories from within the Muslim community itself, indicate that the security services are spying on their own people in a similar manner they did with communist groups within the Australian community back in the 1950s and 60s.

According to both documented evidence and interviews of Muslims living in Australia, a disturbing picture of how groups of Australian’s are monitored and attempted to be influenced evolves.

According to this evidence, the Australian Government through various agencies uses both hard and soft approaches in their engagement of the many Islamic communities within Australia.

This first of these approaches has been through the use of intimidating legislation. The Australian Government has used world events to introduce anti-terror laws that allow for detention, lesson the burden of proof in courts of law, allow for easier surveillance, and drastically decrease the rights of Australian citizens in regards to the legal process, etc. This has given the government much more power over its citizens with little criticism by the Australian community. The mainstream media in Australia through sensationalism has generally supported such measures with only pockets of concern and criticism coming from minor alternative  and foreign media.

The media sensationalism of Australia’s harsh anti-terror laws and ‘public ritualism’ through airport security for example, serves to remind and intimidate the Australian public about the threat of terrorism.

The media has used narratives which have contributed to ‘Islamphobia’ within Australia. This has suited government legislative objectives. Headlines like  “Halal food dishing out radical change to society”, in The Daily Telegraph on 22nd May 2013, “Sharia unwelcome”, in The Australian on 9th March 2012, “Repressing women is sharia’s raison d’etre’”, in The Sydney Morning Herald on 5th May 2011, and “Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks”, in The Australian on 26th October 2006, are examples of this.

Media control of these narratives has certainly been a massive influence dividing the general population against Muslims in Australia according to a  Victorian Police and Victoria University Research report.


This has coincided with a number of acts of violence towards both Muslims and mosques within Australia.


Groups like ‘Reclaim Australia’ thrive on these narratives to develop resentment in their propaganda against Muslims in Australia.

The Australian government has invested large sums of money and resources to electronically monitor the population as has been reported before. Some of this is undertaken ‘offshore’ by contractors to circumvent Australian law.


There is not just Australian Government surveillance on Muslims going on in Australia. There have been reports of Israeli spying on the Australian Muslim community going on. In addition, both the Saudi and Malaysian Governments are also according to many reports spying on their own students in Australia. This is something the Australian Government has known about for many years, but done little if anything to curtail.

In addition, the author heard numerous stories from members of Mosque congregations about ‘agents’ infiltrating Muslim groups in Australia, thus increasing suspicion of others within the Muslim community.  Many Muslims feel they are being victimized and their freedom and practice of religion compromised. Such action, or mere rumors of surveillance and infiltration is not helping to resolve feelings of alienation and marginalization that many young Australian Muslims fell today, according to reports.

ASIO, like it did during the Cold War era, has caste the net too wide. Stories of bullying and harassing people for ‘friendly chats’, entrapment, bribing, and blackmail, in efforts to infiltrate the Australian Muslim community are rife.

The result of the above is that many Muslim’s feel that they are being held responsible by the Australian public for terrorism and extremism. This is particularly the case where the Australian Government has been promoting, or even insisting on the Australian Islamic community adopting a form of “moderate Australian Islam”. Any other form of Islam appears to be demonized and implicitly suggested as being a form of extremism. Many Muslims in Australia feel that very ideas have been criminalized, being deemed as extreme, blurring the lines between Islamic political activism and terrorism. This demonization has created fear and justified particular actions, such as Australian foreign policy in support of the United States, and the curtailing of civil liberties.

A dramatization of this was seen in the case of Dr. Muhamed Haneef back in 2007, where he was deemed guilty publicly, later to be totally exonerated by the Australian court process.

Islamphobia has been allowed to develop because it serves political ends. However it is destroying Australian multiculturalism and building opposition to immigration. This assisted Howard regain election back in 2001 with the ‘MV Tampa’ incident, and baseless allegations during the 2001 election campaign that boat people threw their children overboard to avoid being turned back at sea.

Australia is more unsafe than before. Some Muslims now feel unsafe to leave home. Many Muslims have been abused in public and arson of mosques in Australia is becoming more common. The turban and scarf have become symbols of terrorism. Raids have gone on around Australia where very few people have actually been charged with any offence.

Australian foreign policy has led to many disappointments within the Australian Muslim community. The invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, tacit support for the use of drones, Guantanamo, and the Australian behavior towards the David Hicks case, who has now been exonerated, have alienated many. This is particularly so, where many believe that  objective discussion within the community about what they see as the real issues is suppressed. Muslims interviewed at a Friday prayer congregation, felt the Australian community wanted apologies from the local Muslim community over world events like 9/11, the Bali bombings, and 7/7.

According to a recent survey taken, 60% of Muslim Australians believe the ‘war on terror’ is a war on Islam.

Many Muslims have sympathy for the people who are now suffering because of ‘coalition’ foreign policy in the Middle East. The author heard of some who felt a duty or ‘jihad’ to help those who are suffering, and travel across to war torn areas. Many feel that the peoples of Syria and Iraq have been abandoned and left to suffer. However many have not gone to fight, as the Australian Government have espoused. They have gone to give humanitarian assistance to these war torn communities, and in some cases get caught up in the fighting. Consequently been painted are jihadist terrorists.

The question is, whether successive Australian Governments have sort to integrate or assimilate the Australian Muslim community? Much of the narrative has a neo-Christian undertone in its policy framework. ‘Reclaim Australia’ see Muslims as a threat to an Anglo-Australian culture and lifestyle, where Islamphobia has united a small core of Australians who are against multiculturalism.

The new citizenship test even appears to pose a ‘skewed concept of Australian values’. The attempts to legalize the stripping of citizenship, where a leading constitutional expert believes that people under the proposed laws can be stripped of citizenship by mere suspicion, appears to be a new attempt to intimidate migrants to Australia.

The political climate in Australia today does not allow for discussion about alternative approaches to fighting terrorism, or objective discussion about the refugee problem, not just facing Australia, but many parts of the world as well. The Australian Government paints a gloomy picture about the ‘war on terror’, by its own rhetoric, deeming it unwinnable. They insinuate that the Australian community is helpless and an easy prey for the ‘forces of evil’ through terrorism. This is creating some apprehension in middle Australia.

In a more eloquent characterization, the London Arab language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat compared Islamic State to a remote controlled “cluster bomb”. “Every explosion means as many fragments – jihadists spreading in an unpredictable way on large areas so that no command and counterterrorist operation center be able to prevent the deflagration clusters and its devastating effects.”

With the way Islamic State is reaching out to communities through cyberspace and espouse their narratives, more than just the ‘classical approach’  to fighting terrorism is required. The physiological sources that are producing fanatical and eschatological thinking that produces jihadistic terrorism needs to be engaged, rather than suppressed through counter force, as the natural reaction has been.

This requires a ‘new international doctrine’ that would include prevention, intervention, and reconstructing mentalities to prevent any re-establishment of terrorism under different names and new generations of groupings in the future. Australia is today playing no role in this necessary discussion.

The Australian Government approach to the ‘war on terror’ at home may lead to a much more conservative Australia, and weaken the Australian value of multiculturalism. It may divide rather than unite Australia. However, a divisive electorate may assist the Abbott Government win a second term in office.

As my dear friend, prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic diagnoses: “terror is a tactics, not an ideology. How can one conduct and win war on tactics? – it is an oxymoron.” (Denazification Urgently Needed in Europe, policy paper)

Maybe part of the problem is the ‘war on terrorism’ itself.


Comments Off on Muslim Australia and the search for a solution to the “War on Terror”