ISIS FIRST, AUSTRALIA SECOND
The Australian government has announced plans to repatriate ISIS brides, the National Observer explores why that might not be a good idea [2 Minute Read]
Mariam is a third generation Lebanese migrant who grew up in the suburbs of Bankstown and Punchbowl, two Sydney suburbs which boast large Islamic populations, and in 2013, at age 18 married Kaled Zahab. This is all according to the sympathetic biography provided by the Sydney Morning Herald, as you may have guessed from the title of this article, her story takes a rather dramatic turn for the worse.
Though previously irreligious, Mariam became increasingly interested in her family’s Islamic religious practices after her wedding. Following her rediscovery of faith, Mariam along with her daughter, husband Kaled and father went on holiday through Malaysia and Dubai, but while Mariam’s father returned home Mariam’s new family continued on to Turkey and eventually, Syria. It is at this point The Sydney Morning Herald’s readers are alerted to the fact that Kaled, Mariam’s husband, was a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - better known as ISIS.
Fast forward to 2022, the Australian government under PM Anthony Albanese’s leadership has decided Australia has a responsibility to bring Mariam, along with 15 other Australian-citizens-turned-ISIS-brides and their 42 children back to Australia.
Why is this necessary? Proponents of bringing these 60 individuals back to Australia have presented two main reasons,
These women are all Australian citizens
Their children are growing up in poor conditions
However, of the male ISIS members these women initially married have either been killed or captured, is it really wise to bring individuals into the country who’s defence force is responsible for killing their husbands and fathers? It does not take an expert to recognise being orphaned and widowed by the Australian defence force might give these 60 individuals a sour opinion of Australia, to say the least.
This is not the only concern raised by opponents of this intake, 9News presenter Karl Stefanovic for example raised a valid concern, what about the national security risk posed by these brides to Australians in Australia?
Of course concerns to not end there, in fact there are quite a few more:
Obviously these brides held some conviction to the cause ISIS fought for, considering they were willing to move to Syria for it - these convictions are in literal conflict with Australia
This repatriation is slated to cost Australians millions
To even reintroduce these individuals into Australian life they will need to undergo a de-radicalisation program, which has a rather patchy success-rate
And lets not forget the acts the 16 women were to some degree complicit in, as ‘The Spectator’ aptly points out:
“ISIS has committed terror attacks, genocide, torture, slavery, mass rapes, forced marriages, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, robbery, extortion, smuggling, kidnapping, the use of child soldiers, destruction of ancient monuments, forced conversions, beheadings, crucifixions, beatings, mutilation, dismemberment, stoning, and burning people alive.”
One prominent proponent of repatriation, former ADF intelligence analyst Shane Healey, is quoted heavily by the Daily Mail: when questioned by ‘The Project’ host Waleed Aly on the questionable success of de-radicalisation programs, Mr Healey responded:
“I hate the term 'deradicalised' because I believe it is an extremist spectrum, It's not about being radical or their religion, it is their acceptance or use of violence.”
Mind you, this Shane Healey responding “Yes, 100%” to the question of whether Australia is obliged to bring these individuals back 'even if there is a slight risk' is the same Shane Healey who only last month took a swipe at Ben Roberts-Smith:
![Twitter avatar for @Ronin_815](https://substackcdn.com/image/twitter_name/w_96/Ronin_815.jpg)
It's baffling to see individuals such as Mr Healey and media companies such as ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ so sympathetic to these Brides, explicit supporters of Australia’s expressed enemies, when the same treatment has repeatedly been denied to others:
I'm sure white South Africans wish the same charity afforded to ISIS sympathisers was extended to them by the Sydney Morning Herald, who in 2018 belittled Peter Dutton’s calls to grant special refugee status to said South Africans.
I wonder where these ISIS-bride defenders were when Novak Djokovich was denied access to Australia due to the miniscule risk he presented of spreading covid - to a country already infected with covid.
I wonder if any of those who doubt that real word ramifications could result from ISIS radicalisation would have stood up for conservative influencer Milo Yiannopoulos who was denied entry to Australia for far less than aiding an enemy combatant.
Why should Australians have to bear any risk whatsoever to reintegrate these individuals? Why must we bear the cost of millions of dollars to do so?
Why does the Australian government place ISIS brides first and Australians second?