Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Greens recent scandal: the end of the Greens?

Despite being very busy with my university exams, I just couldn’t resist writing about the latest and possibly the biggest scandal within The Greens party. A scandal that just saw two of their leaders kiss goodbye to their political life.

The media covered this news extensively, however one important question has not been raised so far and that is “why now?” I mean, why only now this issue has been brought to light?

Less than two weeks ago, the party senators voted unanimously against Lee Rhiannon’s actions to destabilise the “party room”. These senators voted to exclude Rhiannon from all “controversial” decisions.

Rhiannon had always counted on Waters and Ludlam’s support but was left extremely disappointed when only Adam Bandt sided with her.
Of course Bandt’s ambition is ultimately to become the leader of The Greens should Di Natale’s leadership be destabilised, so we can explain his support for Rhiannon.

Then comes the scandal.

Ludlam was in parliament for 9 years. No one noticed he was a dual citizen, not even after a few “concerned” citizens demanded publicly with a petition that the electoral commission check his citizenship status. Why after 9 years this story comes out?

The official story was that he attended an international conference where there were many questions about his citizenship. Another Greens senator resigned over a citizenship then it all becomes very clear. Someone is digging dirt on a certain group of Federal politicians.

The latest move to try and “restrain” Rhiannon has proved lethal.
At 66 Rhiannon still insists to become the head of the empire she had once built. She will never give up trying even if to do so would mean destroying the party altogether.

The whole saga reminds me of what happened with the Democrats. The disintegration of the party started the same way: a vicious public fight over leadership. Suddenly there were leaks on Natasha Stott Despoja ‘s attending meetings after long nights out, personal life of colleagues culminating with public infighting over the leadership.

Exactly 7 years ago I predicted that Rhiannon would destroy the party.

Today my predictions are starting to come true.

Good on you Rhiannon and good luck in destroying The Greens.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Will Ludlam stand trial for charges of fraud and wasting public money?

How could media swallow the Greens Politicians' lies that Scott Ludlam "did not know that he had NZ citizenship"... when in fact few concerned citizens initiated petition 3 years ago, after he refused to publish document that he does not have NZ citizenship, asking the parliament to take action against his illegal candidacy..

(The petition could be found on

We consider this to be deliberate misleading public... that could be mounted to fraud...and wasting public money in enforcing the electoral commission to re-conduct last federal election in WA... wasting millions of tax-payers money...

We cannot believe that SBS could not check this petition when it aired that the whole issue was “innocent mistake” of this politician.

Many questions should be asked here:
-How could Australian Electoral Commission not find this mistake?
- What is the need of a law if it cannot be implemented?
- Will Scott Ludlam face trial for charges of wasting public money and making fraudulent documents?

One Greens member commented after swearing on me "f... you mate, what about Abbott who is still dual citizen". Well, again: what is about Abbott? same questions above are relevant to Abbott (if he is still dual citizen until now). Also, the Greens member should remember that "two wrongs do not make a right" especially for a party that deafened our ears with "clean politics" slogan...

Hang your head in deep shame Greens party.

As a Muslim: I am also disappointed by the Australian community

After Australians refused to hear her talks on regressive Sharia Laws, Jassmin Abdel Magied resorted to her usual rhetoric: accuse all who oppose her sick claims to be Islamophobe.

Jassmin wants Australians to swallow, without any argument, that her Sharia Laws are the most feminist laws in history. Problem is, Jassmin has not told us which Sharia Laws she endorses.

Is it the Wahhabi Sharia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Sudan style?
Is it the Shia Sharia, similar to Iranian society?
Secular Sharia like in Egypt, Jordan and most of the Muslim countries

Jassmin who chose to visit countries that enforce repressive Sharia Laws (Saudi Arabia and Sudan), needs to convince me as a Muslim before trying to convince non-Muslims, how Sharia Laws are feminist? These claims are laughable and I will not debate them here.

Not only I’m disappointed with Jassmin and all her extremist supporters but I’m also disappointed by the Australian system and society.

I am deeply disappointed that Australia has allowed extreme Muslims to flourish. Where suburbs like Auburn and Lakemba are ruled by extremist thugs.

I am disappointed that the Australian government has poured millions of tax-payers money to support extreme Islamic organisations and allowed them to spread their extreme version of Islam in our society.

I am disappointed that Australia has not cracked down enough on extreme ideologies that promote underage marriage, polygamy and support for extreme jihad (both locally and overseas).

I am disappointed that our authorities are giving extremists like Jassmin full air and space as a representative of Muslims, while shutting down genuine moderate Muslims.

I am disappointed that Jassmin and other extremists can receive millions of dollars travelling to spread extremism, while moderate Muslim organisations are refused grants of less than $5000.

I am disappointed that both authorities and media have never really promoted an intelligent and factual debate on Sharia Law. It should have been allowed for people who lived under Saudi Sharia Laws to voice their personal experiences and the reality of the oppression and discrimination.

Lastly I am disappointed that Australian authorities have not helped Jassmin to voluntarily remove herself from this secular democratic society so that she could enjoy the privileges of living under Saudi Sharia Laws.

This of course does not mean that Australia is free from Islamophobia, racism and discrimination. But not the Islamophobia Jassmin talks about.

Of course we all condemn any attack on Jassmin or any other community member.

The same courtesy wasn’t extended to myself and other members of the Muslim community who were attacked by Wahhabi extremist. I guess that for Jassmine, we were not the “right kind” of Muslims.

It is the time for the ABC (especially) to stop supporting extremism.

Saturday, May 20, 2017


In response to a post deliberately distributed to members of the Syria defence movement which portrays me as involved knowingly and deliberately in bringing into Syria an Israeli spy, I would like to write a few words here about this.

Firstly the individual who has deliberately distributed this information, damaging for the State of Syria and my own reputation, has failed miserably and only assisted in exposing more valuable information needed to close in on all the collaborators.

From the outset, this tour was under the auspices of the Syrian Ministry of Information who encourage visitors to Syria and see in this a form of economic support for the country. Our organisation’s role in this all was to liaise with the contact person from the Ministry and in a timely manner supply them the passport and details of proposed tour members. I would do initial research but as a layperson I can only research so much as was available to me. Hence, all these documents are subsequently sent to the Syrian authorities for security and intelligence security and security clearances. This is clear on the project link on our website.

We are a small group, we do not have an intelligence service and no do we aim to be one. Therefore, we try our best to check out people who would like to participate in one of our trips by checking their Facebook and googling their name etc. The rest is up to the Syrian authorities and their security organisations. Basically, the Syrian security Services was unable to identify this person.

The person under discussion is a journalist with a British nationality and a real British passport. He had posts in his Facebook account showing he has relationships and travel with countries that don’t have a relationship with the Zionist entity, namely Syria, Iraq and other Arab and Islamic countries. Hence, if he had managed to escape detection from the intelligence services of these States then it would likely be very difficult for us to recognize his true identity.

The fact that the person made a request for entry to Syria and got away with it and possibly had some kind of inside help or knowledge does not mean that we had any sort of prior relationship with him. This issue stems from the Syrian government end.

A person is assessed by the work, obligations they carried out and their achievements. Everyone knows the extent of my commitment to anti-barbaric and anti-conspiracy issues on Syria and other related issues. My sacrifices in doing this work, including my standing up and exposing those involved in the growing problem of extremists in Australia, Syria, the world are there for all to see and it is common knowledge that I endure death threats, vandalism of my property and many other attacks. I take this on board as record of pride. This latest attack on me, here in Australia, is a crime under the Australian laws of defamation and the matter will be pursued and prosecuted.

A Syrian journalist within Syria, Modar Ibrahim, who himself has suspected connections with Zionists and other questionable people, many of whom are forbidden to enter Syria because of their relations with hostile western intelligence, got involved in this matter when he should not have done so and has interfered with the work of the Syrian security services. Modar broke the confidentiality of this sensitive matter, tagging his foreign friends, many of doubtful connections and broke the news. By doing this, he not only interfered in the ongoing investigations but he has hurt Syria’s reputation and the reputation of the State’s security apparatus. These actions of a Syrian journalist working for Syrian State Television, a person who claims to be working in the national interests, smells of an agenda to smear my good name and leaves one questioning his larger agenda. All this Syrian journalist had to do was hand over his information he had gained immediately to the Syrian security authorities instead of make a public fiasco that damages the State, its investigations as well as my reputation.

This Zionist journalist, on his real Facebook page, laughs about the ease by which he got a visa to Syria. Clearly this is proof of inadequate coordination amongst the various bodies who facilitate access to Syria and some sort of problem that needs to be investigated as the Syrian Security services are second to none in the world.

The entry of a Zionist journalist to Syria confirms our previous statements and reports submitted to the Syrian authorities about how many of the Zionists (Christians and others) have been able to enter Syria and penetrate into Syrian society, networking and building important relationships with a wide spectrum of Syrian society as well as their targets.

Clearly, we have a disturbing situation here of a wide array of suspicious individuals entering Syria, many from churches that have proven Zionist intentions and agenda. Regrettably, despite much documentation submitted to authorities about a particular Christian Zionist who has entered Syria now three times, money has been changing hands, in some cases very large sums. Hence, in the case of this Zionist Journalist it can be assumed that money changed hands somewhere along the way for him to evade detection.

There are Syrian security failures. We have been working behind the scene with the Syrian authorities for weeks to reveal all the circumstances of this shocking topic and to work to close the gaps. The Lies of Zionist groups and their cells will not deter us from the support of Syria, Palestine and other people who are the victims of the Zionist-American project.

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

Article by Syrian activist Leo AlHalabi on Tim Anderson... before we lose Leo's page...

Leo Alhalabi
Yesterday at 9:02pm ·

Tim Anderson is one of those least likely to be anyone’s best friend given his colorful history and current demeanor. All one has to do is ask some of his associates to realize that with having friends like him, one doesn’t need enemies. But this is the last thing that Tim wants his international fan base to know.

Tim Anderson jumped onto the Syrian bandwagon for many reasons, one of which was that he’d been desperately looking for a come-back into fame, or rather infamy.

As a young adult, would-be professor Tim was a leading figure in Ananda Marga, a highly “devoted” Hindu-ish sect, but one that’s also highly controversial. Whether the many allegations about Ananda Marga are baseless or not, who knows, but this post focuses on what I know of Tim and what is gleaned about him from sources online. The intention here isn’t to open a closet of skeletons, but as Ananda Marga was accused of a number of serious acts of religious terrorism around the world and that Tim is connected with the cause of defending Syria, we need to understand whether his involvement is an asset or a liability, a credit or an embarrassment. Or is he merely another nutty professor.

It’s alleged that Ananda Marga’s target was the Indian Government, as at that time their leader was imprisoned by Indian authorities. Australia was one of many countries that suffered from terrorism in the late 1970’s, long before the IS ever existed.

The would-be professor wasn’t accused of one act, but actually two, and let’s get real; why would the Australian Government try to frame him as he pleaded? Why would the KGB frame him as he also pleaded? After all, before the incidents, he was a Mr. No Body.

He was a young man in his twenties and merely played the role of a spokesperson for the Ananda Margas, and the Australian Government had absolutely no reason to target him and use him as a sacrificial lamb.
He was put on trial, found guilty and spent six years in jail, before he was found guilty again of another crime which saw him locked up again. That was the infamous Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing of 1978 in which three people were killed and 11 injured, some very seriously. All up, he served a total of just over seven years for crimes he claims he never committed.

The evidence against him was later found to be not 100% conclusive, and hence he finally was acquitted and released from jail on the basis of insufficient evidence and the fact that he’d already served time, not once, but twice, on two separate incidences. His co-Margi stayed behind bars, unlike him, with incriminating evidence and confessions. Some ask why would his fellow Margi, a member from the lower echelons of the group’s hierarchy be guilty without Tim’s knowledge and involvement, given that this member confessed to the crime, stating he was ordered by Tim. That was a matter the Australian Government decided to rule about in Tim’s favor, but we should remember that although this ruling was made in his favor, his direct involvement in the acts of terror were not categorically proven, but neither was his innocence. It’s plausible to speculate that the Australian authorities wanted to close this embarrassing chapter (more on this below) and after seven years in jail all up, decided to let Tim go.

During his “tenure” in jail, the would-be professor was making in-roads towards another tenure. He started his tertiary education whilst in jail, and after receiving his PhD later on, he immediately landed on a senior position at the University of Technology Sydney, and shortly afterwards scored permanent tenure at Sydney University; one of the most prestigious universities in Australia.

Why would a prestigious university appoint a man of such background and give him a permanent position unless he was a good catch and a prolific publisher? But he is neither. His thus far tenure of two decades at the university has produced little in terms of number of academic publications, citations and advisory to post-graduate students. Such appointments are much less than the common practice in academia, they are never done.

The attached article clearly states that there was a huge upheaval surrounding the terror acts and rivalry between police and intelligence agencies and many attempts to silence some people. Was Anderson’s tenure at the university a part of a deal to keep him quiet? What’s even more odd, is that the man, according to his own admission, is “Australia’s only academic who is boycotted by the media”, so what exactly is he doing at that university when funds are hard to come by and competition is fierce?

During the transformation from a convicted criminal, acquitted free man, to a professor, Tim turned from living a devoted esoteric life into atheism and Marxism; which is odd given that he accused the KGB of framing him earlier. True believers in God don’t suddenly become atheists, and if they do, it only means that they never believed in God in the first place. But the new-found professor did have a god, and he will always serve this god with the utmost of devotion, and that god is none but his own ego.

His former Margi friends speak volumes about his eccentricities and egocentricity, as even though the group was restricted and under watch, former members continued to have a bond of friendship with each other, but not with big man Tim and it seems most loath him or feel so devastated that they wish to forget him.

Let us speed forward to 2011 when the Syria war began. In that war, the professor found a ripe opportunity to serve his ego god. Hence, he jumped on the opportunity long before most other Western supporters. He quickly built for himself a group of followers and established a movement he named “Hands off Syria”. He rounded up a good number of supporters who were much younger than him and much less experienced in politics and relevant matters. They looked up to him, regarding him as a demi god, wanting to eat from his hands. The demi god felt satisfaction, and he thought it was good.

To be catapulted to fame within the Syrian support movement, the professor needed a mega boost, so he piggy-backed on the Australian Wikileaks Party and headed a delegation to visit Syria and met with President Assad in 2013. By then, the Syrian Embassy in Australia was closed and the Syrian Government didn’t have the means to check him out.

Furthermore, Syria was in deep trouble back then, and Assad gave him audience because he needed as many windows to the West as possible, and what a boost that audience gave the professor. He became an instant hero and his ego elevated from that of a demi god to a full god.

Now his followers back home needed to plead for his audience, and it’s a wonder how his tall thin body was able to balance the big pumpkin of a head that grew on top.

However, when his controversial past attracted media commentary after his visit to President Assad, that media attention would likely have informed the refusal of his request to meet for a second time with Assad as he was refused.
His Facebook group, “Hands off Syria”, was like no other group, because originally he was the only admin and had a permanent “pinned” intro (courtesy god Tim) in which he dictated his terms and conditions. But when suggestions were made to him, he often disregarded them, as he’s the ultimate ruler of that group and it is after all, one of the many manifestations of his ego.

The professor then decided to write a book. The flimsy thin book that lacked substance was festooned with plates and graphics, and pages upon pages of references. The 250 page B5 book has almost 50 pages of references at its end, many pages of references and the end of each chapter, and many, many plates leaving at best 80 B5 pages of material of poor quality, not befitting that of an academic. Now the book is translated into seven languages. How was this paid for and who do the proceeds of sales go to?

But what the great professor didn’t realize was that its back cover as well as the last page in the final draft featured the “wrong” map of Syria, a map that acknowledges the Syrian Iskandaroun province as part of Turkey. Whilst it is internationally recognized as part of Turkey, any Syrian, genuine supporter of Syria or even an alleged supporter of Syria will find great offence in this map. The professor was able to correct his mistake before the book was launched.

In fairness to the “all-knowing” professor, it must be stated that he didn’t use the wrong map deliberately; he simply didn’t know. His lack of knowledge in regard to the map is however a true reflection of his lack of knowledge about Syria, period.

The pretense the unbecoming professor displays about his alleged love for Syria has the thumbprints of a passion that is highly pathological. Why would a white Australian who’s never been to Syria till 2013, who doesn’t know what the proper map of Syria should look like, have this kind of strong, morbid fetish that goes as far as challenging Syrians, patriotic Syrians, about their love and devotion to their own country?
The word “fetish” possibly holds the key, the ageing Prof who is in his mid sixties seems to have a fetish for brunettes. His similar aged partner is one, but within the Syrian community, the professor seemingly displays a penchant smutty streak that places himself surrounded by young Syrian female beauties who look up to him, considering themselves blessed.

This professor even once made an audacious Facebook collage about Syrian girls, displaying faces of young Syrian girls in their twenties, young enough to be his grand-daughters, with a try-hard fatherly caption, alluding these to be the angelic faces of Syria. It doesn’t take a deep probe to read into this statement and guess what was on his mind.

After a series of crimes rightly or wrongly associated with Ananda Marga in Australia and elsewhere, the most infamous of which was the 1978 Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing, Tim Anderson’s involvement or otherwise will remain in the minds of some as questionable in the absence of him being proven innocent. After all, the inconclusive evidence against him that eventually led to his acquittal, doesn’t conclusively prove his innocence either, especially that his alleged accomplice (Pederick) as mentioned above, who confessed to the crime stated he was ordered to do the bombing Tim himself.
In between 2011 and now, that controversial professor has shed many skins and turned his back on his “friends” within the Syria support movement, just like he turned his back in the past on his Margi friends and left them alone to face the brunt of the law.

A cynic’s view of Tim would not classify him as a nutty professor but rather as a smutty professor.
The smutty, flippy-floppy, self-conceited, holier-than-thou, former terror suspect who was never proven resoundingly innocent, dares take the upper moral ground in the pro-Syria movement and decrees from his self-proclaimed ivory tower that no one within the movement should call another a traitor. But he doesn’t apply his own “golden rule” to himself. He takes liberty to talk about betrayals of others and classifying some even as enemies; including very active patriotic Syrians. The alleged great pro-Syria activist who had to be told what the map of Syria looks like, has taken upon himself the license to decide who are the true patriotic Syrians and who aren’t. He also has the temerity to welcome dubious non-Syrians to Syria saying, “welcome to your second country”. It’s a mystery as to why he considers himself entitled or in such a position to do so.

Behind the scenes, the professor supports smear campaigns against genuine Syrian activists, knowing deep down inside that there is no proof to support those campaigns against them. Now, why would a man, an alleged freedom fighter, someone who was “framed” with a crime that he says he didn’t commit and spent over 7 years of his youth behind bars for it, why would he engage deliberately in defamatory campaigns against people he claims to support. It’s a bit like holocaust survivors who in turn did the same to the hapless population in Palestine. Reflecting on that, the congruency in the manner of thinking and actions display a worrying indictment on his character.

In one of his many lame attempts to acquire credibility, he joined hands with a dubious character according to the Australian media, an academic he’d put on his team and who the media reports as engaging in highly offensive racial remarks and alleged earlier years participation in a neo-Nazi website called StormFront. An experienced activist should have an eye and nose for such types, and even though the professor seemed to not know those details beforehand, he certainly displayed once again, his lack of wisdom and inability to make sound judgements.

Yes, indeed Tim has a long history of changing friends and causes like he changes socks. He’s no one’s friend and he doesn’t seem to have a permanent cause to serve. His alleged love for Syria looks like a ploy, and he only serves his ego, all the while savoring the accolade of young Syrian beautiful brunettes.

Tim Anderson has been playing with fire, stabbing his comrades in the back, throwing rocks at people when his own house is made of glass. He has a lot to answer to.

Friday, March 24, 2017

London terrorist attack: another reason why we need a Royal Commission on radicalisation

Despite being on high alert, the UK authorities were not able to stop the deadly terrorist attack in London yesterday. This event should have a great impact on how our authorities deal with local radicalisation.

In the UK (same as in Australia), the government together with authorities and opposition, acknowledged there was a problem with radicalisation but chose not to take any action against it. Some sections of the media and politicians even used this radicalisation to stir up division and more Islamophobia in our society.

In the last few years, in Australia, there has been no debate on where the source of this sudden “discovered” high radicalisation came from. We saw both the minister and shadow minister of education claim they had no prior knowledge of the high radicalisation in our public (and Islamic) schools. When in fact, myself and many of my friends, knew about this high radicalisation.

We had grave concerns when we witnessed our media, together with our politicians, support terrorism in Syria under the false banner of supporting the “Syrian revolution". It is a fact that every terror attack both in Australia and around the world, has been perpetrated by supporters of the so called Syrian revolution or by terrorists returned after participating in the Syrian revolution.

After all the terrorist attacks on home soil and the heightened alert, still to this day, our authorities have not taken any practical steps towards de-radicalisation. Extreme centres are still allowed to preach hate, mosques managed by extremists remain open, extreme Imams haven’t been deported and funding to extreme organisations is still active.

So far all we have seen from our authorities is the arrest of a few radicals just before they commit terror attacks or immediately after they have committed one. We have seen plenty of rhetoric without any meaningful action.

This lack of actions from our authorities towards radicalisation is due partly to the fact that extremist have become a very powerful lobby in this country. No government, no major party and no politician can take meaningful steps against the source of radicalisation. The radicals have infiltrated our political system, media and education system.

We believe that the only solution is to form a royal commission to reveal who allowed the radicalisation to infiltrate in our system at all levels. A royal commission, with its power to grant immunity and protection for witnesses and experts, will have a better chance to explore and reveal the reality of this sudden-discovered high radicalisation.

A royal commission can:

• Investigate how radicals infiltrated political parties and parachuted their preferred candidates on parties in safe seats.
• Investigate how terrorists were able to easily travel without passports to join the fight in Syria.
• Reveal how the authorities were actively engaging in bullying campaigns to silence anti-extremism campaigners to the point of conspiring with foreign authorities (in my case to ban me from entering Lebanon).
• Reveal how Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries were able to infiltrate our universities, schools, media and political parties.
• Explain how Australia found itself populated by thousands of hardcore radicals who are working very hard to kill our citizens and spread chaos in our beautiful country.
• Investigate how our media, especially state-funded ones, were actively spreading radicalisation by falsely reporting on what was happening in other countries, especially Syria and Libya.
• Explore how government departments are funding extremist organisations with millions of dollars and discover the extent of radicalisation achieved with such funds.

A royal commission will be able to give answers and recommendations.

A royal commission is our only hope to find out what went wrong and how to correct past mistakes. Without assertive de-radicalisation steps, we are dealing with symptoms and not with the real cause.

Without a royal commission and its findings, radicals and their foreign financiers will continue their infiltration of our political system, media and schools.

They will have enough money to build more mosques, centres and schools to continue radicalising our youth.

A royal commission is the only meaningful step to stop the blame game between the minister for education and the shadow minister on what is happening in our public schools.

We will mount a campaign demanding a royal commission to start a meaningful de-radicalisation plan. Such plan is vital not only to prevent terrorist attacks in Australia, but it is also important to start a campaign to restore faith in our authorities and the system.

We need to restore security and social harmony in our community and the only way to achieve this is through a royal commission.

Thursday, March 09, 2017

When Pauline Hanson refused to meet with us to discuss radicalisation..

Pauline Hanson's latest comments about Islam and Muslims are further evidence that she is another lying politician who cannot be trusted.

Pauline Hanson deafened our ears for the last decade talking about extremism and radicalisation. Yet when we contacted her office several times offering to combine efforts in fighting against radicalisation, she just ignored our calls.

Since her election last July, we sent her two letters inviting her for a meeting to discuss radicalisation and extremism. We contacted her on 25 July 2016 and 15 February 2017. On both occasions, we received no reply (attached are the letters we sent)

Hanson’s main campaign election platform was to fight extremism. So when she refuses to meet one of the strongest voices fighting extremism, what does this tell you? Simple, it was just a mere empty election promise only to gain votes!

Pauline Hanson wants to show herself as a politician promoting transparency, clean politics and national security. So far what we are seeing from her is just more divisive rhetoric. As yet we have not seen any of her election promises in action.

Ms Hanson's empty racist and Islamophobic rhetoric will not benefit anyone in the community. Her racist and divisive rhetoric will not prevent terrorist attacks. It will not help in de-radicalisation efforts. And definitely will not help our national security.

Her divisive rhetoric will not improve housing affordability and employment security. And of course it will not repair social division and will not improve social harmony.

We would like here to publicly challenge Ms Hanson to show her true colour: if you are against extremism, let us work together. But if you want to use extremism for cheap electoral gains, we will be the first to fight against your destructive agendas and platforms.

Thursday, March 02, 2017

Why I support the ban on face coverings

The debate on whether to ban the face covering has reached a point where there is talk of introducing a private members’ bill to ban it.

First and foremost I want to mention that as a Muslim, I support the bill.

Should the bill be designed only to help improve national security and to prevent terrorist attacks, then most Muslims would welcome the ban.

My concern is that members who introduced and support the ban have done so, to inflame islamophobia for electoral gains.

The reason I support the ban is as follows:

• Under the current circumstances of high extremism and high security scare of terrorist attacks on home soil, the ban could help in preventing security scare and calm fear in the community. It will help security agencies monitor extremists and might prevent attacks.

• Contrary to claims made by extremists, the burqa and the niqab are not part of the original teachings of Islam.

• There is no doubt that wearing the burqa or the niqab is an indication of extreme conservative ideology. Almost all terrorists arrested and convicted of terrorism-related charges believe so and have their female family members wearing this kind of face covering.

Having said this, I do believe the ban itself won’t bring security to this nation nor it will reduce the chance of terrorist attacks. This ban should be part of a wide-range strategy to fight extremism.

Politicians who are using the ban to stir islamophobia will in fact achieve the opposite. This ban and the growing islamophobia that accompany the debate will be used by extreme organisations to lure more youth into the rhetoric of hate. This will serve as golden opportunity for extreme organisations to recruit more terrorists.

What is more concerning is that political parties are talking tough on fighting extremism but their actions show quite the opposite.

For the last 3 years, major political parties were talking tough on fighting extremism, but were sending the opposite message by siding with terrorist organisations in Syria.

Even various local governments and major political parties are still to this day, strengthening their ties with local extreme organisations by increasing funding and inviting these organisations to all kind of consultations and events. At the same time, genuine and fierce anti-extremist organisations and individuals are still ignored and deprived of any funding.

While I and many other Muslims support the ban, we would be however reluctant to publicly support it for the above mentioned reasons. We are concerned the ban, together with other rhetoric, is designed to stir more Islamophobia in the society. With no clear de-radicalisation plan, the effect of our support to such ban will have many negative impacts.

I and many in the community welcome any engagement with any political party or group to discuss the effectiveness of such move on de-radicalising of our youth. We also are very open to cooperate with these politicians to combine efforts to fight against extremism.

The majority of Muslims in Australia have a deep feeling of belonging to this nation and share a deep fear of possible terrorist attacks. Many Muslims, including myself, were victims of attacks by extremists. We need to deal with this issue with a lot of sensitivity and not stir up more Islamophobia.

Politics of mere populism will not make Australia immune to terror attacks, quite the contrary. The same policies in France resulted in more terrorism and insecurity.