Was the Sydney siege terrorism or just a terrible act?

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 9 years ago

Was the Sydney siege terrorism or just a terrible act?

Religion played a role in Man Haron Monis' actions during the siege in Sydney's Martin Place no matter how deranged his views were.

By Crispin Hull

Well, was it an act of terrorism, or wasn't it?

Was Man Haron Monis a terrorist? Or as Brian's mother in Monty Python's Life of Brian said: "He's not a messiah. He's just a naughty boy."

Gunman Man Haron Monis sent hate mail to Australian war widows.

Gunman Man Haron Monis sent hate mail to Australian war widows. Credit: Kate Geraghty

That is being brutally irreverent, but Brian's mum had a point. We need to see through religious delusion.

Since Monday's ghastly events, many religious leaders and people in politics have spoken out saying that Islam had nothing to do with Monis or his evil acts. As soon at the black flag was seen at the window of the Lindt Café many Muslims feared a backlash.

And then there was a reaction to fear of the backlash with the #illridewithyou campaign.

Those fearing a backlash and those who feared that Islam as a religion would get blamed were quick to dismiss the incident as the act of a lone madman whose religion had nothing to do with it.

Those who wanted to dissociate religion from the incident called for religious tolerance and pleaded for no backlash.

They were right to call for religious tolerance, but not for the reasons they implied - that religion is worthwhile and is to be respected.

No, rather we should support religious tolerance and make discrimination on the grounds of religion illegal precisely because religion is not worthwhile and not worth respecting. We should support religious tolerance because nearly all religions are intolerant and have as part of their tenets a requirement to proselytise and convert.

Advertisement

Nearly all of the world's religions want everyone in the world to be of that religion. Most have in the past, and some still do, condone the use of force in that aim.

One way for society to help prevent religiously inspired violence and terrorism is to ensure no one is discriminated against on grounds of religion.

Religious discrimination does inspire terrorism. So does religious aspiration. It is even more pronounced when mixed with a political or ethnic aspiration. The discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland; the demand for a Jewish homeland; the desire for a Palestinian state; the "ethnic (really religious) cleansing" in the Balkans are good examples.

When a gunman forces a hostage to hold up a flag saying that there is only one God and that is Allah and Muhammad is his messenger it is absurd to say that religion had nothing to do with it.

Monis may have wanted to talk to the Prime Minister and may have had demands about the legal system and his criminal prosecution, but that does not make it a purely politically motivated act of violence. He obviously thought that his religion had something to do with it – a deranged view that the legal system was against him because of his religion.

So, Tony Abbott was at best only partly right when he concentrated on the political.

He said: "The whole point of politically motivated violence is to scare people out of being themselves."

He said it was shocking that people should be held hostage "by an armed person claiming political motivation".

But it is not just a political motivation. It is a religious one as well. Indeed, more religious than political.

More broadly, the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam is inspired by a belief that those in power are repressing their religion or their branch of religion.

The suicide bombers are convinced they will go to paradise. That is the classic ingredient of religion – you defeat death and go to paradise after death only if you follow that religion. Otherwise it is eternal pain after death.

As it happens, Monis does not fit the model of the suicide bomber. He is more like the Family Court bomber of the 1980s – lashing out at the system. But nonetheless he lashed out at the system because he thought the system was against him on religious grounds, however groundless that belief was.

Religiously inspired violence is a conviction you are right and that anything done in the name of your religion is right. Religion can inspire that sort of self-righteousness.

Yes, we know that religion can also inspire great humility and humanity, but it is not a necessary condition for those things. Whereas, you would not get suicide bombers without a religious underpinning.

Monis' acts seemed to be halfway between a terrorist perpetrating violence for a wider religious or political cause and a criminal perpetrating violence for selfish gain. In any event, you cannot leave religion out it.

Promises, promises

Maybe we will have a new sort of political promise next election. Rather than the traditional "We will do XYZ" it will be more qualified. It will come in the form: "We will support legislation to do XYZ."

Given the state of the Senate, can a political party be expected to promise much more?

And by the way, my guess is that the crazy Senate electoral system will not be changed in time for the next election and another lot of last-candidate-standing accidental ring-ins will get elected.

But even qualified promises would not save a government from contradictory promises. Contradictory promises inevitably lead to at least one promise being broken.

And so it was with Joe Hockey's embarrassing midyear economic statement.

You cannot promise a return to surplus AND promise to end the carbon and mining taxes AND not to cut the ABC, SBS, health and education AND not to increase any taxes AND not to introduce any new taxes.

The government has persisted with the illusory idea that huge savings can be made by cutting the public sector.

To the contrary, there comes a time when it is counterproductive. The costs of strained tax and health administration become greater than the saving generated by cuts.

Blowing out the return to surplus is perhaps the most culpable breach of promise of the lot because it will ultimately affect the delivery of all government services and activity.

The government should realise that spending cuts will not do the trick and some serious tax raising is needed. And the best place to do that is where the big money is: concessions to big business and high-income earners.

Without facing that, it will have to deal with a bitterly disappointed and angry electorate.

crispinhull.com.au

Most Viewed in National

Loading