Having not posted for a while, here is an update on some recent writings by myself, by some colleagues, by people in related research areas, and news on some Australian terrorism cases recently resolved in the courts.

I have published a new AVERT post, Captured Australian Islamic State members: whose problem? The post discusses the dilemmas involved in dealing with the 40-ish (so far) Australians captured by the Syrian Democratic Forces in north-east Syria, arguing that more should be done to repatriate these Australians in order to prosecute the adults and protect the children. My aim is to convey how genuinely difficult the situation is, while nonetheless showing the practical and moral failings of Australia’s current approach.

For a detailed look at this international problem, see Brian Jenkins’ new CTC Sentinel article: Options for Dealing with Islamic State Foreign Fighters Currently Detained in Syria.

In other publication news, a report I co-authored with Michele Grossman, Susan Carland and Hussein Tahiri back in 2016-2017 has now been published: The roles of women in supporting and opposing violent extremism: understanding gender and terrorism in contemporary Australia.

Also, Judith Betts and Mehal Krayem have published a journal article about the demonisation of Lebanese-Australians, focusing on Peter Dutton’s 2016 characterisation of Australia’s intake of Lebanese migration during the late 1970s as a “mistake” (and the subsequent debates). One part of the article, which I greatly appreciate, addresses how the terrorist threat was used as proof of this “mistake” and how some of my own writing was used by commentators to support this flawed argument.

However, there’s a lot more to the article than that. Betts and Krayem also go back through the original Cabinet documents from the 1970s which are commonly cited to support the “mistake” argument and show how the documents have been been misrepresented. Betts and Krayem also show how misleading many of the talking points were. For example, Julie Bishop claimed that Dutton was being misrepresented and that he was merely decrying Australia’s inadequate settlement services for Lebanese people fleeing the civil war. If Dutton’s argument was indeed just that the Fraser government should have done a better job of providing settlement support, then I would  agree with him (as would Fraser, who said in 2009 that “If there was a failure of government in those early months it was in resettlement programs and planning”). However, Betts and Krayem diligently trawl through Dutton’s actual words and show that “[d]espite her assertion, we were unable to find any public acknowledgement on Dutton’s part of the lack of settlement assistance provided to Lebanese in the mid‐70s”.

Their main article is behind a paywall, but Judith Betts summarises its key arguments in this post on Pearls and Irritations. Betts also wrote a follow-up article in Inside Story, delving deeper into the Cabinet documents from 1976 to understand the decision-making process at the time, which resulted in the poorly-implemented settlement process, exacerbating social and economic disadvantage. Her Inside Story article also covers how Canada did a better job of facilitating Lebanese migration during same period, to help people flee the horrific civil war, and that those ” who went to Canada haven’t had to suffer the indignity of being labelled a mistake by their immigration minister.”

Meanwhile, there’s been a bunch of other new posts on the AVERT blog, mostly discussing the Christchurch terrorist attack. Debra Smith discusses some of her research (with Mario Peucker and Muhammad Iqbal) on Victoria’s extreme-right, and what insights it can provide in light of the attack. Michele Grossman answers some questions on what the attack tells us about social divisions. Jay Marlowe reflects on some problems with the “this is not us” response to the attack. And Matteo Vergani suggests that the media needs a new code of ethics for reporting on terrorism.

The University of Western Australia has published a radicalisation blog series, based on a recent symposium. There’s an introductory post by Shamit Saggar and Samina Yasmeen, followed by contributions from Shamit Saggar, Hass Dellal, Leila Ben Mcharek,  Michele Grossman, Raafia Raees Khan, and Rizwana Abdul Azeez.

Finally, several terrorism prosecutions came to an end recently:

• Khaled Khayat has been found guilty for his role in the Islamic State plot to bomb an Etihad flight and then attack members of the public with a chemical weapon. The jury could not come to a verdict on his brother, Mahmoud Khayat, and he will be retried later this year.
• Musa Cerantonio and five others have been sentenced for their attempt to join insurgents in the Philipines.
• Ihsas Khan was sentenced for his Islamic State-inspired stabbing in Sydney.
• Momena Shoma was sentenced for her Islamic State-inspired stabbing in Melbourne.
• And NSW man Haisem Zahab was sentenced for trying to develop missile-detection and missile-guidance systems for Islamic State. This was an unusual case, and the sentencing document is extremely detailed and interesting.