John Howard’s former chief of staff has a worthwhile piece in the Times of London on why their counterterror programs have been successful. It’s refreshingly direct:

the Australian system takes Islamist ideology seriously. It does not deal with radical Islamists. It confronts extremists’ views, rather than seeking to co-opt “pragmatic” radicals who happen not to be in favour of the use of violence in the here and now for purely tactical reasons. After the bombings of 7/7 in London, Tony Blair declared correctly that “the rules of the game had changed”. In Australia the rules changed dramatically some time earlier.

The piece is intended for a British audience, but I know some Americans who might find these suggestions intriguing:

Meanwhile, the conservatives, with the support of social democrats, have advanced the cause of citizenship tests as a means of emphasising that all who choose to live in Australia are expected to sign-on to our democratic values. Moreover, imams have been advised to preach in English.

Preach in English, or…what happens? There are obvious First Amendment problems with requiring someone to preach in English in America, but on the other hand citizenship tests (or even long-term visa tests) which emphasize democratic values seem a reasonable precaution for weeding out some of the extremists. It wouldn’t stop a dissembling terrorist, of course, but it might trip up some uncompromising firebrands and put the rest on notice.

comments (0)   trackbacks (4)