Following the ousting of Tony Abbott last month as Prime Minister, as well as the recent electoral loss suffered by Stephen Harper and his Conservative party, the Western world has lost two freedom fighters, and democracy is far poorer for it. Last year, the relationship between the two leaders was dubbed a ‘bromance’, given the shared passion for opposing any carbon tax proposals that would damage jobs. However, of greater significance is the strong leadership shown by both men toward the Islamist enemy, and the powerful message sent towards Islamic State. To defeat an enemy, which Islamic State truly represents towards anyone or anything that resembles ideals of freedom or democracy, this requires defining what that enemy is. Aside from any deliberate inflaming of Islamic tensions, it is absolutely vital to be unapologetic in rhetoric, and to provide strong opposition toward an enemy which has no interest in negotiation.
Previously, when Abbott was Prime Minister, he stated at a press conference: “the Daesh death cult is concerned, they’re coming after us. We may not feel like we are at war with them, but they are certainly at war with us”. However, this strong and assertive leadership came to an end in last month’s leadership spill. In contrast, in the aftermath of the recent terror attack in Sydney, new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated: “If we want to be respected, if we want our faith, our cultural background to be respected, then we have to respect others”. Mr Turnbull, why would should we respect an ideology that holds complete contempt for all who do not adhere to its violent, barbaric, ultra conservative 7th century doctrine?
Likewise, former Candadian Prime Minister Harper stated that despite much change in security procedures since the September 11 attacks, “the major threat is still Islamism… “When people think of Islamic terrorism, they think of Afghanistan, or maybe they think of some place in the Middle East, but the truth is that threat exists all over the world”. This gloves off, honest and direct rhetoric contrasts greatly with Canada’s new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The change in leadership and tone toward radical Islamists, was reflected when Trudeau stated: “It is short-sighted to pit groups of Canadians against one another. It may make some feel good for a little while, or even work politically in the short term, but it is no way to build a country”. At first glance, this statement is not of outrageous nature. However, when context is taken into account, it is clear to see that Trudeau’s position is, for the most part, an apologetic stance toward militant Islam. Trudeau planned to deliver a press conference sponsored by the group IRFAN- Canada, which had direct links with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Moreover, Trudeau has announced that Canada is withdrawing its fighter jets from Iraq and Syria, and that Canada will no longer play a formal role in military operations in the area.
Australia and Canada are countries of remarkable similarities. Both inhabit lands of vast expanse, both hold an abundance of natural resources, were settled by Europeans, have recently experienced multiculturalism and substantial Asian immigration, and remain as members of the Commonwealth. However, most significantly, they are both proud democracies who stand for the equality of all people and the rule of law.
The two changes in leadership are significant. They are sure to represent a further perversion of the democratic nature of two countries, and the shift toward Islamization. There is a notion, that underpins the stances of Turnbull and Trudeau. There is an idea that ‘offending’ Muslims, through direct and proper action, would marginalize the community and lead to more terrorism. This cowardly and conciliatory stance is misleading and incorrect primarily for two reasons.
Firstly, it is the choice of EVERYONE to become more inclusive in a particular society. Canadians and Australians are generous people, and there is no legislative discrimination that is specifically directed towards the Muslim community. Muslims bear a substantial responsibility for any tension or friction that exists in broader society, and this must be discussed and admitted.
Additionally, the apologetic stance towards those who seek to harm free and Western societies, assume that these terror- centered ideas and positions are emerging purely in response to perceived atrocities or supposed inequalities. This idea developed, which focuses on ‘Islamophobia’, also assumes that there is no doctrine of aggression and contempt stemming from Islam, and that the eternal ‘religion of peace’ is not to blame. Clearly, Canada and Australia have taken turns for the worse, as the West continues to refuse to directly confront the growing threat of militant Islam.