Criminalising solidarity with Syria

But what of the Syrian army? Why is it a criminal offence to fight with it? Because there's an embargo placed on the Syrian regime, we're told. So it is a matter of government position then. It is the Government, after all, which decided that the Syrian regime was worthy of sanctions but that Israel, notwithstanding its brutally oppressive and inhumane operations, is not. In fact, it's all about government position. The legislation is merely cover.

When people travelled to Afghanistan in the 1980s to join the jihad against the Soviets, the Foreign Incursions Act was ignored. More recently, when people travelled to Libya to join the rebellion against Gaddafi, the Foreign Incursions Act was ignored. The difference, of course, is that these rebel forces had the approval of western governments. The rebels in Syria - particularly the Islamic elements - do not.

The contradictions do not stop there. AFP Deputy Commissioner Peter Drennan justified the arrests by lecturing Muslims about how there was "no justification for violence" and that "violent killing of people should not be glorified or justified for any reason." Where was Drennan in the last decade when Australian troops were deployed to the Muslim world for this very purpose? More broadly, why is it acceptable for Australian troops to partake in conflicts overseas under the pretext of supporting the oppressed, but not so for Muslims? Why are the acts of Australian troops in conflicts abroad characterised as an ultimate sacrifice to be revered, but the sacrifice of Muslims in an effort to assist the oppressed is characterised as criminal conduct to be condemned?

Attorney-General George Brandis emphasised the alleged threat to Australia's long-term national security from people who support or engage in foreign conflicts (the ones that don't have government sanction, of course). He expressed concern about, "the radicalisation of Australians as a result of the Syrian conflict, particularly those who return to Australia with the capabilities acquired through fighting or training." This line has duly been parroted in media.

Yet the notion that Muslims who go to Syria will become "radicalised" and constitute a security threat when they return is fantastical nonsense. It is based in the all-too-familiar Islamophobic, Orientalist narrative that sees Muslims as sub-human, somehow less civilised, unable to control themselves and hence needing the intervention of the civilised white man. Somehow Muslims who go to Syria will lose all rational capacities and, on their return, will not be able to tell the difference between a Middle-Eastern war zone and peaceful Australian suburbia.

Why, it must be asked, are the same concerns about radicalisation and national security not raised in relation to other Australian citizens training and fighting in the armies of foreign allies, or indeed Australian troops going to partake in invasions abroad?

This entire affair is yet another instance of the exceptionalist treatment of Muslims and the morally-bankrupt politics of the state. All right-minded people should register loud and clear objection. The target may be Muslims today, but could be anyone else tomorrow.

What we have here, in essence, is a base form of politics attempting, from behind the cover of law, to criminalise the loftiest of human acts: personal sacrifice to assist the oppressed.