There are 34 Australian citizens in trouble.
These women and children must be helped to return home.
If in fact they have broken Australian Law, it is our problem, not someone else's.
We should not inflict our problems on another country.
And only the breaking of Australian Law should be considered.
Laws broken in another country are that country's problem, not ours.
The present approach by major political parties reminds me of schoolyard attitudes.
Which are often driven by impulse rather than reason.
Time for them to stop saying what they think people want to hear.
Time for them to tell the public what we should be doing.
I think we need to do what we can lawfully to facilitate the return of those 34.
It is disgraceful that we are allowing such a petty response to continue.
The vast majority of the 34 are children, which makes our approach all the more troublesome.
It is time for sanity to rule.

Hi Ipso Fatso,

I agree with what you say re Australian citizens. The government is taking the correct position in doing what is legally required of it, and no more. I hate to see innocent children used as political pawns, in the way they are, but with recent events and the low standing of the opposition, the rise of One Nation, they all see votes in this fiasco, and that's what they are fighting over.

Yep, bring back the kids...foster them out to families who'll break them of whatever rubbish their jihadist parents indoctrinated them with... leave the women to wallow in the mess they've created for themselves. Bring the women back - eventually- but keep them away from polite society.

mhaze,

I agree the children are the clearest case for repatriation. But the "leave the women to wallow" position assumes two things that aren't so straightforward:

1. That abandoning Australian citizens overseas is legally clean.
2. That leaving potentially radicalised adults in unstable regions makes us safer.

If any of the women committed offences under Australian law, then they should face Australian law. That's not indulgence, it's accountability.

Exile feels tough. It often just exports risk.

We either believe in our courts and security agencies, or we don't.

Hi Ipso Fatso,

I'm not sure that it's that straightforward.

I'm not sure it's entirely correct to consider them Australian citizens.
They left us to join the Islamic caliphate, remember?

Weren't they captured and kept in captivity by the Kurds?
Why not just release them into Syria where Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham took over, i.e. Israel and the U.S. engineered the overthrow of Syrian Assad government and installed Abu Mohammad al-Julani.

Isn't this what they pledged their allegiance to?

"These women and children must be helped to return home."
- Why must they?

"If in fact they have broken Australian Law, it is our problem, not someone else's."
- Aren't some of these kids ones that were once photographed holding the decapitated heads of Islamic State victims?
- Regardless of this, I don't care so much about what happened over there, I care about what these ISIS inspired kids will end up doing here in the future.

"We should not inflict our problems on another country."
- WE DIDN'T, THEY made their own choices.

"And only the breaking of Australian Law should be considered."
- Sounds like you want to give these kids a bowl of ice-cream
- So you're saying you're perfectly fine with having these young apprentice headchoppers hanging around your own granddaughters?
YOU MAY NOT CARE BUT OTHERS MIGHT, and it may not be your granddaughters, but it'll be someones...

"Laws broken in another country are that country's problem, not ours."
- Maybe you should call up Assad in Russia and ask him if he wants to get the gang back together to lay legitimate charges on these band of lunatics brides?

[Cont.]
"The present approach by major political parties reminds me of schoolyard attitudes.
Which are often driven by impulse rather than reason."
- That's because they still think and act like schoolkids and never outgrew the childish mentality.

"I think we need to do what we can lawfully to facilitate the return of those 34."
- Not without safeguards for the other 25 million.
- Can we vote on it?

"It is disgraceful that we are allowing such a petty response to continue."
Australians aren't responsible for other Australian's stupid choices.

"The vast majority of the 34 are children, which makes our approach all the more troublesome"
- The fact they are kids themselves, does not negate the considerations of protection other Australian kids may deserve if these IS kids have a radical extremist ideology ingrained into them from an early age.
- I care about the kids of Aussie mums who did not decide to join the caliphate.

"It is time for sanity to rule."
- Firstly display it, only then may I then entertain it, because I'm not sure sanity is demonstrated by bringing these ISIS kids back to mingle with the other non-ISIS kids.

We all have many many instincts.
Think of these as 'apps' maybe.
Particular circumstances trigger one or more instincts, to make you react appropriately.
Most of our 'severe' responses are usually dormant.
And our lives are steady, and we are even tempered.
However, we could be trained to have our usually 'inert' instincts very active indeed.
Then we would react abnormally to situations around us.
And we would most likely not be steady and even tempered.
So it is all a matter of training?
And what is trained can be untrained?
So don't abandon other human beings without a little bit of thought and perhaps effort too.

JD,

I specifically said we should bring the women back eventually. But I'm opposed to letting them use their kids as an excuse to cover their criminality. Although Muhammadian terrorist groups are past-masters at using kids as human shields.

They committed a crime by travelling to ISIS controlled areas and joining ISIS. But what's going to happen when they get back here is that we'll hear sob stories about how they were coerced or naive and not really guilty - the ABC is already running such sob stories. So, among the bleeding-hearts they (the Syrian 11) will become the victims.

"We either believe in our courts and security agencies, or we don't."

DON'T

mhaze,

If you genuinely don't trust our courts or security agencies to handle cases like this, then that's a much bigger problem than these 34 people.

You're not objecting to repatriation. You're objecting to the possibility that the system won't punish them as harshly as you think they deserve.

But the alternative isn't tougher justice. It's indefinite limbo in a foreign camp, with no due process and no Australian oversight.

If they committed offences under Australian law, charge them. If they can't be convicted, that tells us something about evidence and standards, not about "sob stories".

The rule of law isn't tested when we're dealing with people we like. It's tested when we're dealing with people we despise.

If we abandon that because we distrust the outcome, then we've already conceded more than they ever could have taken.

'Bring them home' seems like a naive emotional response.

It seems this group have been assessed as too great a risk.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-26/children-isis-brides-politics-anthony-albanese-coalition-greens/106382326

"The government argues there are members of this latest cohort who present a more serious safety risk than previous groups, as evidenced by the application of a temporary exclusion order (TEO) on one woman based on security advice."

It's not just about saying they have a right to come back.
It's also about finding someone dumb enough to risk signing their own name to it, for when it all goes wrong.

"You're objecting to the possibility that the system won't punish them as harshly as you think they deserve."

Not objecting. Just pointing out that they'll be relieved of responsibility for their actions by the courts and allowed to re-join the community despite the possibility of a series of ticking time bombs.

"If they committed offences under Australian law"

Not 'if'. That's established. But it'll be forgiven because they are (1) Muhammadian and (2) taken under the wings of the anti-Jew left.

"If they can't be convicted, that tells us something about evidence and standards, not about "sob stories"."

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the current legal system. They can be convicted, that's a given. But the back-story that is being concocted will be used to justify mitigating the crime and letting them free. ( A young Muhammadian thug was convicted of premediated gay bashing recently and allowed to walk free for the same reasons.) That's our current 'legal' system.

I'm not objecting to any of this, just observing how it will pan out. There are favoured groups under the law in Asutralia these days and these women tick all the favoured boxes

You've shifted from "this is risky" to "the system is rigged," mhaze.

That's a serious claim.

//You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the current legal system.//

I *work* in the current legal system. I can assure you that it's not me here who misunderstands it.

If courts are systematically "relieving responsibility" based on religion or political sympathy, that should be demonstrable in sentencing patterns and appellate outcomes, not anecdote.

Individual cases with controversial sentences don't prove structural bias. They prove that sentencing involves mitigating factors, which has always been the case.

You say convictions are "a given" but mitigation will let them walk free. That's speculation. Australian terrorism offences carry very substantial maximum penalties, and courts have imposed lengthy sentences in past cases.

If we're now at the point of saying courts can't be trusted because of who the defendant is, that's not a counter-terrorism argument. It's a loss of faith in the rule of law itself.

Either we believe Australian courts apply statutes passed by Parliament, subject to appeal, or we're claiming they operate on sectarian preference.

That's a much bigger accusation than this case.

"You've shifted from "this is risky" to "the system is rigged," mhaze."

You put those things in quotes but I didn't say them. Fair dinkum, you spend more time making up my views for me thn actually espousing your own views.

I haven't "shifted" (see how I used your actual words - you should try that sometime), your understanding of what I've said has evolved.

I wasn't quoting you verbatim, mhaze.

//You put those things in quotes but I didn't say them.//

I was summarising the implication of what you've argued. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Let's face it: this isn't about etiquette or accuracy. It's about creating a distraction.

Anyway, if you believe courts systematically mitigate punishment based on religion or political sympathy, that's not a minor concern. That's a claim about structural bias.

If that's not your position, clarify it.

I thought I should make something clear.
Whilst our society can be ready to understand and accommodate differing ideological views, at no time should we countenance violence or other forms of serious harm to any person.
So we must be 'eternally vigilant' when assessing people, or indeed groups, which appear to follow other than normally accepted community standards.
Nevertheless, I pose the following.
If your own 14 year old daughter were somehow radicalised, and whisked overseas to marry a 'wrinkly', would you want her returned?
(A 'wrinkly' is someone 30 years of age or older.)
Or would you abandon her to her fate?
I am sure you would do all you could to get your child back, whatever she had done.

These "ISIS Brides" would be easier to manage in Australia from a security point of view than many of the extremists we have here at present.

"A 20-year-old man from regional WA has been charged with preparing for a terrorist act.
Police allege the man was planning a mass casualty event at public buildings including WA parliament house, police headquarters and Muslim faith places of worship, before being arrested."

"An ethno-nationalist group has gatecrashed a community event held by federal MP for Goldstein Tim Wilson before police were called on Thursday night.
Video shows National Workers Alliance leader Matt Trihey telling attendees that politicians were ignoring the issues of crime and immigration."

Reading the propaganda of this 'National Workers Alliance' (sounds very NAZI) I'm of the opinion that at least one member could be a regular white supremacists poster on this form.

"I was summarising the implication "

Wow... we're back on the 'you implied' bandwagon.

I back mhaze on lack of faith in our courts of law to prosecute Isis brides, or for that matter, ISIS husbands. Precedence supports it.

Muslims are protected, whereas Jews are tolerated, the Albanese way!

Why Convictions Are Unlikely:

If Australians detained in Syria return to Australia, conviction is not automatic.

Here is the official cop-out!..:

Terrorism charges require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence from territory once controlled by Islamic State is often limited or inadmissible. Association or marriage alone does not prove material support. ( if a wife in a war zone is not material to the husband, then it’s difficult to imagine what is).

In the only prominent case in Australia under similar circumstances, Mariam Raad received a non-custodial outcome.

Security concerns may exist, but courtroom proof is a much higher bar.( unless you’re a White Supremacist under the pump, or an applicable red headed woman).

Australia has the weakest response to returning terrorists, whereas, in Europe the current misfit ISIS brides, would be facing tighter scrutiny, and a tougher row to hoe for reentry.

mhaze,

You said courts will "relieve them of responsibility" and that there are "favoured groups under the law."

That's not me inferring something delicate. That's your description of how the system operates.

If you think courts systematically mitigate punishment because defendants tick certain identity boxes, that's a claim about bias in sentencing.

If that's not what you mean, then spell out what you do mean.

But this isn't about me being on some "you implied" bandwagon. How could it be? As I had suggested, the implication existed whether you meant it or not.

It's about whether you're asserting structural distortion in the legal system or not.

Nice try, though.
_____

diver dan,

"Proof beyond reasonable doubt" isn't a cop-out. It's the core protection of criminal law. The standard doesn't change depending on who the defendant is.

If evidence gathered in a war zone is limited or inadmissible, that's an evidentiary problem, not proof of religious protection.

Raad didn't "walk free." She pleaded guilty and was sentenced. The judge looked at her circumstances and imposed a penalty accordingly. That's how sentencing works in every category of offence, not just terrorism.

If there were some systemic religious favouritism at play, we'd expect to see a pattern across cases, not one controversial example cited over and over.

And stepping back from that, are we really saying Australia can't trust its own courts to deal with Australian citizens? Because that's the logical end point of this argument.

Those are very different arguments.

What is wrong with my suggestion of bringing them all back
to the Christmas Island facility.
Employ physiology experts to treat & examine them.
I know it cannot be perfect but any that fail or on release
get involved with radicals then there is a room on Narue Is
for them.

"You said courts will "relieve them of responsibility" and that there are "favoured groups under the law.""

That's not even close to saying its risky or rigged. You just inferred that and then demanded I answer to your inference. But I don't play that game with you any more. I just call it out.

Yes, there's a bias in sentencing. But its not rigged, its just a bias in the classes that now run our legal system.

"The standard [ beyond reasonable doubt ] doesn't change depending on who the defendant is.

George Pell, rest his soul, might have had something to say about that.

Equally... a man was charged with hate speech for saying "that the Jewish community was the “greatest enemy to this nation” and to “Western civilisation”. Now I don't like that framing but we used to have free speech here. He was sentenced to a year in gaol for that. A few days later a Muhammadian was found guilt of gay bashing (there was video so no reasonable or any doubt) leaving the victim with life altering injuries. He walked free. Yeah, our system in totally unbiased.

mhaze,

You're putting two completely different offences under two different statutes side by side and calling that proof of bias.

Sentencing isn't a moral scoreboard. It turns on the specific charge, the statutory maximum, prior history, whether there was a plea, and what the Act requires the judge to weigh up. Different offences carry different sentencing frameworks.

Regarding Pell, the High Court unanimously overturned the conviction. That's not evidence that "beyond reasonable doubt" changes depending on who you are. That's the appellate system doing exactly what it's designed to do.

You say there's a "bias" but it's not "rigged." If sentencing is predictably skewed by identity, that's systemic bias. If it isn't, then we're talking about individual cases you think were wrong.

Which one are you actually arguing?

Because pointing to two controversial sentences isn't the same thing as demonstrating structural distortion.

JD goes from there's no evidence of bias to the evidence of bias doesn't count because of reasons.

"If sentencing is predictably skewed by identity, that's systemic bias."

Yes bias but not rigged. Get it?

Pell spent 404 days in gaol despite there being ample reasonable doubt. The High Court had to impose rules of reasonable doubt on biased lower courts.

No, he doesn't, mhaze.

//JD goes from there's no evidence of bias to the evidence of bias doesn't count because of reasons.//

If bias exists but doesn't alter outcomes in a predictable way, then it's just disagreement with individual sentences.

If it does alter outcomes in a predictable way based on identity, that's systemic distortion. There isn't really a third category where bias floats around harmlessly.

As for Pell, the High Court applied established appellate principles and unanimously overturned the conviction. That's the system correcting itself. Every common law jurisdiction has cases where appellate courts reverse lower courts. That's not proof the whole structure is compromised.

Pointing to one overturned conviction and two sentences you disagree with isn't evidence of a pattern. It's evidence of contested cases.

If you're claiming structural identity-based sentencing skew in Australia, that's a serious empirical claim. It needs more than three anecdotes.

"If bias exists but doesn't alter outcomes in a predictable way"

Well you need to show that it isn't predictable.

mhaze,

You’re the one asserting that sentencing outcomes are predictably skewed by identity.

That’s a positive claim. The burden of showing a pattern sits with the person making it.

Pointing to three cases you dislike isn’t evidence of predictability. Predictable means demonstrable trends across comparable offences, not anecdotes.

If you’re arguing that religion systematically alters sentencing outcomes in Australia, that should show up in sentencing data.

If it doesn’t, then we’re back to individual controversial cases.

May I add a slightly irrelevant observation to the discussion?
However reasonable the law, those who administer it can and do make mistakes.
Most of these mistakes are corrected, eventually, by appeal or otherwise.
But it must be hard for those who are subjected to these errors.
They must wonder if life has gone mad around them.
I also spare a thought for those who were wrongfully hanged in past centuries.
To be treated that way when you knew you were innocent must have been more than profoundly distressing.
It is one of the reasons I reject the idea of having such 'punishment' happen today.
It is far too easy for the law to make an irrevocable error.
This always boils down to human limitation.
Either in the drafting of laws, or the interpretation of those laws.
Luckily, we now have DNA testing to help minimise errors.
And I note that many inconsistencies have been uncovered by this means.
So even though we champion an orderly system of administration, we must allow that nothing is perfect.
And we must strive to achieve better outcomes, and avoid unnecessary distress.
I think, somehow, that we can do better if we try.
A little 'common sense', injected somewhere in to the system, wouldn't go amiss.
And I think that far too often, laws are used as a means of gathering revenue.

Pell was the treasurer for the Vatican.
If he wasn't directly involved in pedophilia he was more than likely involved in covering it up.

So 85 kids blown up by Israel and America with 3 schools attacked.
I just saw one Iranian bloke offering his 2 cents while waving around one of the dead girls arms.

Most moral army in the world.
People need to realise that just because people say things doesn't make it true.

Where does this video fit into the narrative?
http://x.com/zainabReza_13/status/2027808392409190552

Joke of the day
http://x.com/OunkaOnX/status/2027960183348203652
"Why does it have to happen to us always?...We didn't do anything"
This is how professional victims play the victim card-right after attacking another country

So much typical Academic background unproductive waffle. We need solutions & unproductive waffle does not offer solutions !
Get your snouts out of that waffle trough & offer some ideas such as leave these women to their decisions. They've consciously disowned Australia & therefore are no longer our responsibility.
Spend the money & effort on the genuine needy here ! Making greedy soul-less lawyers wealthy at our expense is only playing into the hands of those who desire our demise !
How much does it require to make some of you wake up for crying out loud ?

Indy,

No chance of you getting your snout into the waffle trough, when you've had it firmly planted in the welfare trough for the past 50 years! Its unknown as to what the circumstances were that brought these women to the ISIS war zone in the first place, and the situation they now find themselves and their children in. As I said earlier, the Australian government is doing no more than what it is legally required to do.

the Australian government is doing no more than what it is legally required to do.
Paul1405,
Legal requirements would stipulate jail for those openly joining a terrorist group ! Let's see if the Law will be upheld.

"So 85 kids blown up by Israel and America with 3 schools attacked."

The school was 'attacked' by an Iranian rocket that misfired. There's footage on 'X' showing the rocket being launched right next to school, rising 100 meters or so and then falling back onto the school.

Exactly the same scenario as the hospital 'attack' in Gaza that you feel so heavily for. Do you NEVER learn?

_____________________________________________________________________

"You’re the one asserting that sentencing outcomes are predictably skewed by identity."

You're the only one talking about predictability. I've never used to word. So you make a claim about what you think I said and then demand that I prove your false claim. A daily occurrence these days.

mhaze,

You're now wriggling out of the word "predictable" because that word forces you into evidence territory.

You've said there's bias and that certain groups are favoured under the law.

If that bias doesn't systematically affect outcomes, then what are you actually claiming?

Individual judges making discretionary decisions you disagree with isn't structural bias. That's just contested sentencing.

If, on the other hand, identity regularly influences outcomes, that's a serious empirical claim.

You don't need to use the word "predictable." But if the bias you're alleging has no consistent effect, then it isn't doing any real work.

So which is it - occasional controversial cases, or systemic influence?

"then what are you actually claiming?"

Go back and read what I wrote. Oh, and try to read the actual lines, rather than between the lines.

I have read what you wrote, mhaze.

You've said there's bias in sentencing, that certain groups are favoured under the law, and that courts relieve responsibility in ways that concern you.

I'm asking you to clarify what that amounts to.

Is it:

1. Occasional sentencing decisions you disagree with?

or

2. A broader pattern where identity influences outcomes?

If it's the first, then we're just arguing about individual cases.

If it's the second, that's a structural claim.

I'm not reading between the lines. Quite the opposite. I'm asking you to state plainly which of those you mean.

This gentleman (JD) has a careful and clinical mind.
He will 'harvest' your writing like a field of grain, and in doing so will find details you didn't realise you had written.
So whatever your response, it must be exact and logical.
No stray weeds lurking amongst the golden grain.

I have made the suggestion that we bring them all back to
Christmas Island where we have everything under our control
in two threads but no one has responded.
Is it that Hare Brained an idea ?
We could have professional people to examine them and retrain
the children and Australian teachers in their school.
After a period they could attend a local school.
If any of the women are incorrigible then they can sit on
Nauru Island and contemplate their situation.

"No stray weeds lurking amongst the golden grain."

Doesn't matter. Even if there are no weeds, he'll assert they're there (because its implied) and then spent ten posts trying to get you to address the issue of weeds that never existed in the first place.

Christmas Island.
Is this practical?
Would we need to establish new facilities there to deal with the new arrivals?
Buildings, medical staff, teachers, etc.
And would we simply be avoiding the issue?
Easier to bring them here where they belong.
Then deal with them according to law.
Cuts a few corners I think.
And I don't believe they are all secretly plotting to harm us.
To characterise them all in this way is a bit over the top I think.
They are Australian Citizens, and will be dealt with calmly and fairly as and when they return.
They must already understand this, and have accepted it will happen that way.
They still want to return.
And though the Australian Government need not assist them with this return, it surely should not hinder them.
I don't see it as trying to.

I was listening to a news broadcast on this very topic.
I could not help noticing that the points raised were very similar to those expressed here.
Is this a coincidence, or could it be that opinions such as ours are part of their research, so that statements being broadcast are as logical and up to date as possible?
Just a coincidence I think, but it made me wonder.

Implied weeds?
Implication is a powerful tool.
It is definitely something which is real and consequently significant.
The advantage of implication is that we need not be explicit.
We can skirt around a subject in such a way that, though we don't say something directly, our meaning is still clear.
This can save us from being accused of trying to harm someone with words.
Which in today's social climate is a distinct advantage.
So worry not if you have 'implied' without meaning to.
Be cheerful, and work out how to do it better next time.

mhaze,

If you think I'm inventing "weeds", the fix is simple: state your position plainly, in one or two sentences, and I'll respond to that.

What I won't do is treat insinuation and anecdote as substitutes for a clear claim.

If you're saying "there are favoured groups under the law", that's not a weed I planted. Those are your words. Either you mean it in a structural sense, or you mean "some sentences annoy me." Those are different arguments.

So make the claim explicit, and we can talk about it. If you'd rather keep it vague, that's your choice, but don't blame me for asking for clarity.

Hi mhaze
"The school was 'attacked' by an Iranian rocket that misfired. There's footage on 'X' showing the rocket being launched right next to school, rising 100 meters or so and then falling back onto the school.

Exactly the same scenario as the hospital 'attack' in Gaza that you feel so heavily for. Do you NEVER learn?"

I've not come across your video, do you have a link to it.
I've seen British MP's talk about this western school attack without being refuted.

I've heard stories about US targets chosen by AI on unchecked intelligence, making assumptions of where IRGC would hide. Apparently the site of the school was once used by IRGC many years ago.
The info's in the first video.

http://www.youtube.com/live/NG3AHag-I-w

http://www.youtube.com/live/K-hvbk72q8U
http://youtu.be/yd_uJiRcl0Q
http://www.youtube.com/live/nJ6yjjr1ogA
http://www.youtube.com/live/X-MhSSLDibM

Contains swearing by experts criticising Trumps foolishness.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1521825719107177
I'm sure that's still not enough for the Woke Left to wake up !

The silence from the usual suspects defending Dark Ages mentality is proof that this bloke hit the nail on the head !

Hi Indyvidual,

What's your opinion of this then?
All the was were created BY ISRAEL, and then they rub it in your face.

http://x.com/TruthFairy131/status/2030093471965716805
http://x.com/TruthFairy131/status/2029774742111277486
'Rome will fall to Persia', Sounds like their religious aims are to engineer a western defeat!

I tell you all time and time again

WHO PUT THE SPIDERS IN YOUR BED?

And here's the stupid part.
- I told you all I have a war on stupid.

Israelis back war with Iran despite uncertainty and fatigue
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6d023rjpzo

>>Support for the war is strong in this country. A poll released by the Israel Democracy Institute on Wednesday suggested that 93% of the Jewish public were in favour of it, compared with 26% among Israeli Arabs.

"This is actually a consensus," Prof Tamar Hermann, a senior research fellow who helped carry out the survey, said. "Even during the last campaign against Iran, we didn't have such high numbers."<<

Mass exodus as thousands of Israelis leave their so-called ‘promised land’
http://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=712609281482421

I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Part of me thinks we should block all Israelis from entering Australia at least until their war is over, they wanted this war and they are going to make the whole world pay for it, and some amongst them brag about destroying our nations with Islam, but there's another part of me that doesn't want innocent people killed.

But how innocent are they 93%
They supported the genocide, they supported the war
They should stay and fight the war they started to whatever outcome

Certainly no western country should send their own people to die for the mess they've made.

Armchair critic,
Looks like we finally have stupidity fighting stupidity with stupidity !

Hi AC,

Have you noticed that many Israelis interviewed on the street have an American accent? Why is that?