Human Rights Lawyers Oppose Keeping Us Safer From Terror


After the latest Islamic terrorist attack in Australia, the Brighton siege carried out by a Somalian refugee, which killed one and injured three police officers, our leaders have at least promised some form of action. At a COAG meeting on Friday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and state and territory leaders agreed in principle to enact measures that would make it harder for criminals who have terrorism links to obtain parole or bail.

It is still not good enough, as the only thing that will ensure we don’t continue to see an increase in the occurrence of Islamic terrorism in Australia is an immediate ban on Muslim immigration and deporting all Islamic extremists and migrant criminals where possible. But ensuring those who have been charged or convicted of plotting terrorist acts and are not roaming the streets with the ability to carry out their attacks at will is a good start.

But of course, even this modest proposal is met with opposition from the leftist Islamist apologists and so called human rights industry. The Guardian Australia has put together an article featuring quotes from several human rights lawyers who claim that implementing these parole and bail reforms would be ‘Handing victory to terrorists’.

Their reasons for opposing these reforms are truly breathtaking. Julian Burnside QC, a well-known committed leftist lawyer believes that all parole decisions should be left to the parole boards. In other words, he believes that unelected judicial officers should be in charge of public safety, not the politicians who the people democratically elect to carry out their will. Burnside says of these reforms, ‘We will take your freedom in order to protect your liberties’. Well those who are convicted of terrorism offences have given up the freedoms the rest of us enjoy when they decided they wanted to kill their fellow citizens and turn back on the country that gave them a better life.

Another lawyer interviewed is Rob Stary, who claims the reforms will hinder the success of having vulnerable young terrorist offenders being put into the deradicalization program. Yeah, of course that should be our first priority in dealing with terrorists, attempt to get them to see the error of their ways rather than ensure the public are protected.

Stary is also critical of the reforms because more people are killed and seriously injured by domestic violence and drug offenders out on parole. Well that is a good argument for tightening parole in those areas too, everybody was just as outraged when Jill Meagher’s killer was revealed to have been out on parole.

Then Stary implements the typical leftist tactic of downplaying the risk of being killed from Islamic terrorism by saying “Terrorism in Australia, fortunately, is responsible for a smaller number of people being harmed”. However, no one would argue that Islamic terror is not on the rise, both here and around the world, and that it is right that we try and prevent its increase. Also, he’s practically saying that since it’s responsible for harming “a smaller number of people” we should not focus on it. Saving as many lives as possible does not seem to matter. Let that sink in.

Then Stary tries to argue that putting people in prison for violent offences does not work claiming “Studies and evidence from around the world show that punitive approaches are counterproductive’’. He points to the high incarceration rate in the United States as proof, however this high rate is partly because prisons in the United States consist of a significant number of inmates who have been convicted of non-violent offences. That is not who we are talking about here, we are talking about people who want to kill as many infidels as possible, not someone who may have stolen a pack of gum.

Stary’s arguments then degenerate further by claiming that the Brighton terrorist Yacqub Khayre was not an Islamist, just on an ice-fuelled bender. This is despite the fact he was a “peripheral player” in an anti-terrorism investigation with links to Islamic State and a Somalian based terrorist group. He then claims that it is our fault as a society that he committed this attack “He was the product of a criminal justice system that had failed him”. It’s more he was a product of the soft leftist law and order approach.

The Guardian then interviews Dr Diana Johns, a lecturer in criminology who also claims it is our fault as a society that Khayre carried out this attack as we should have done more psychological testing of him to see what his triggers were and been more sympathetic of his refugee status, “If we had  seen and responded to that child’s trauma, including from the moment he arrived in this country as a refugee, and responded to any language and learning difficulties he might have faced, then perhaps we would have done a lot more to reduce risk and protect the community’’.

Never mind keeping the public safe from a man who had been convicted of armed robbery which included stabbing a man in the leg, plus there are plenty of refugees who have traumatic backgrounds and don’t behave this way.

Of course, of all this sympathising with the terrorists and blaming the rest of us for their crimes is cold comfort to the victims. The victim of the Brighton siege Kai Hao now has a mother who has to bury her only son and his recently married wife is now without her life partner. If Khayre had not been on parole then Kai Hao would still be alive, it’s that simple.

We need to be prioritising public safety before the rights of criminals and attempts to rehabilitee them. Human rights lawyers have also forgotten that some people are not capable of being rehabilitated. They also seem to have forgotten about the human rights of the rest of us who are scared to go out in public in our own country.

It would be easy to dismiss these human rights lawyers’ objections to tougher terror measures as just your usual out of touch leftists, but the law profession also makes up the judicial branch of our system of government, who could very well strike down these reforms or any other future anti-terror legislation. The people are demanding government action to reduce the risk of Islamic terrorism in Australia, lawyers and the judiciary should let our politicians carry out the will of the people and make Australia safe again.

Author Details
Tim Wilms is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of, he is the Host of the WilmsFront live show, and co-host of The Brawler and the Brain and Trad Tasman Talk shows. He based in Melbourne, Australia where he also conducts field reports.
Tim Wilms is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of, he is the Host of the WilmsFront live show, and co-host of The Brawler and the Brain and Trad Tasman Talk shows. He based in Melbourne, Australia where he also conducts field reports.