The end of the Bromance and its implications

Seeya in Brisbane, mate. And bring some Molson Drys, would ya? Picture: AP

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 shared passion for opposing any proposals for carbon taxes which would act to damage jobs. However, of greater significance is the strong leadership shown by both men toward the Islamist enemy, and the powerful message sent toward the Islamic State. To defeat an enemy, which the Islamic State truly presents toward anyone or anything that resembles ideals of freedom or democracy, 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 held leadership, 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 following last month’s leadership spill. In contrast, in the aftermath of the recent terror attack in Sydney, the 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 should we respect an ideology which carries complete contempt for all who do not adhere to its violent, barbaric, ultra conservative 7th century doctrine?

Likewise, during Stephen Harper’s leadership in Canada, Harper stated that despite much change in security procedure 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 as 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 a 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 position 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 are lands of vast expanses and an abundance of natural resources. These nations 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 the 2 countries, and the shift toward Islamization. There is a notion, that underpins the stances of Turnbull and Trideau. 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 specific toward the Muslim community. Muslims bear a substantial responsibility, for any tensions or frictions that exist in broader society, and this must be discussed and admitted.

Additionally, the stance which is apologetic toward those who seek to harm our free and Western societies, assume that these 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 which stems 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.

Leave a Reply