• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

BBC Monitoring Quotes From Australian Press 25 July 05

Posted on: Sunday, 24 July 2005, 15:00 CDT

The following is a selection of quotes from editorials and commentaries published in 25 July editions of Australian newspapers available to BBC Monitoring:

Terrorism

Sydney's The Australian: www.theaustralian.news.com.au "The roll- call of terror's victims lengthened at the weekend, with at least 88 people killed in a series of blasts at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Shaykh. But make no mistake: Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian man shot dead by police on the London Underground on Friday, was no less a victim of the Islamist fanatics than the innocent holidaymakers in Egypt - or the London dead on 7/7. Mr Menezes's slaying appears to have been an appalling mistake. But when a man emerges from a house that is under surveillance for terror-related reasons, is wearing unusual clothing, refuses to stop for police and rushes onto a Tube train, it is hard to argue that police on the scene have many choices. The ultimate blame belongs to the terrorists who have made London a city under siege.

The fact Al-Qa'idah has struck again in Egypt - another resort, Taba, was hit last October - tells us much about the hydra-headed terror franchise. Egypt is a secular authoritarian state that has begun tentative moves towards full democracy with President Hosni Mubarak's announcement that opposition candidates will be permitted in September's presidential poll. What will those who argue the war in Iraq was the mainspring for 7/7 have to say about the victims at Sharm al-Shaykh, most of whom will be ordinary Muslims? And whom will the attack now harm, except yet more ordinary Muslims who lose their employment as Egypt's tourism industry reels?" (Editorial (25)

2. "Bomb us, and we agonise over the 'root causes' (that is, what we did wrong). Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that 'Islam is a religion of peace'. Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodomites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush, Blair and Howard. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that to the 'vast majority' of Muslims 'jihad' is a harmless concept meaning 'decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles'.

Until the London bombings. Something about this particular set of circumstances - British subjects, born and bred, weaned on chips, fond of cricket, but willing to slaughter dozens of their fellow citizens - seems to have momentarily shaken the multiculturalists out of their reveries. Hitherto, they've taken a relaxed view of the more, ah, robust forms of cultural diversity - Sydney gang rapes, German honour killings - but Her Britannic Majesty's suicide bombers have apparently stiffened even the most jelly-spined lefties." (Columnist Mark Steyn) (25)

David Hicks

Melbourne's The Age: www.theage.com.au "The Law Council of Australia has repeated its insistence that the Australian government has a duty to ensure that David Hicks, the Australian detainee in Guantanamo Bay, be brought before 'a properly constituted trial, not a military commission'. The council was responding to a report by Lex Lasry, QC, whom the council appointed to observe legal proceedings against Hicks. On the basis of Mr Lasry's report, the Law Council said 'it is impossible for Mr Hicks to get a fair trial where the US Department of Defence plays the accuser, jailer, prosecutor, defence attorney, judge and jury in a matter'. ...

But the [Australian] federal government has consistently said it has confidence in the US treatment of Hicks and the procedures it has in place. It was not perturbed when Hicks was detained for two years without being charged, in defiance of international laws and protocols. David Hicks is paying a heavy price for fighting on the wrong side in Afghanistan. He was not breaking the law when he did so, but our understanding of what the rule of law means, and what protections the law can afford, have taken a beating since then." (Editorial) (25)

Sources: As listed

Source: BBC Monitoring Newsfile

More News in this Category