Back to Parallels

 

Words matter:
on the National Response to Islamophobia

• A phobia is an unreasonable fear of something, either social or specific.
• To be diagnosed as a phobia, a person's anxiety must not match the danger posed, and it must cause distress that affects their life.
• Both social and specific phobias usually respond to treatment.

From: Phobias - an overview [1]

The report, titled A National Response to Islamophobia: A Strategic Framework for Inclusion, Safety and Prosperity [2], was released to the public as reported by SBS News on the 12 September 2025 [3], from now on referred to as the Report.

Words matter - how something is defined, what contexts they evoke, in what sequence they are applied.

The same goes for quotes. Mainly they are designed to include an authority to which the author relates in order to enhance the validity of the surrounding text; even more so should they be placed at the beginning of it.

As such the introductory quotes to the Report, one from the originator of Islam, the other from St. Augustine, set the tone for what is to follow.

For a document that seeks to counter a fear of Islam to use an authority from that self-same source does not contribute to the perception of objectivity, unless its author is not aware of, or perhaps does not care about, a wider conceptual space which features sentiments other than those held by that religion. The subjectivity of religious beliefs has been a constant source of disruption throughout history, sometimes with devastating consequences. Hence advanced governances are first and foremost secular.

The subjectivity is further accentuated by using a quote from St. Augustine. First a follower of the Manichaeans, he converted to Christianity and declared his way of thinking in works written around 388 CE. Let's quote him again, this time more to the point:

The order of nature is such that, when we learn anything, authority precedes reason; for reason may seem weak when, having stated its argument, it turns to authority for support. And because the minds of men are obscured by the habitual darkness of sin and evil which enshrouds them and, as a consequence, lack the clarity for perception proper to reason, it has been beneficially provided that the dazzled eye be led into the light of truth beneath the boughs of authority. [4]

St. Augustine's "authority" comes from the Church, being representative of God. For him it is more important to abide by a doctrine than to follow the steps of reason because we humans are "obscured .. by sin and evil". An attitude prevalent in the Middle Ages and only rolled back by the European Enlightenment, something which Islam never experienced. By the way, the translation from Latin has been approved by the Catholic Church and we are assured it is "free of doctrinal or moral error" [5].

Such is the mindset behind the Report.

The phobia fallacy

Psychology tells us that a phobia is an unreasonable fear. But what exactly is 'unreasonable'?

Consider arachnophobia, a fear of spiders. It is true that many spiders are not dangerous, and even the venomous variety is not often encountered. Still, Australia has some of the most venomous spiders in the world, and the Sydney funnel-web is the deadliest of them all [6]. It occurs in populated urban areas and forests. Realising that your backyard could have them, you can hardly be accused of arachnophobia if you didn't allow your children to roam about without checking the place beforehand. In other words, although the overall probability of being bitten by a funnel-web is low, under the circumstances it is quite reasonable to entertain the possibility. Therefore your fear is not a phobia at all. Note the circumstances - funnel-webs exist, they are deadly, and there is no access to prior knowledge helping you to decide one way or another. To put it differently: Positing the overall statistical probability against the probability within the moment.

There is a borderline then between actual phobias and a response to more ambiguous situations. It can be prudence which is the rational response rather than being reckless. As aviators would say, "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots; but there are no old, bold pilots".

The Report would have us believe that the fear of Islam only exists in the minds of the uninformed and presumptuous.

The history of Islam

To recite the entire history of Islam is obviously way beyond the format of this article. One source would be the History of Islam on Wikipedia [7] with its numerous links and references. From the outset the discerning reader would note the sheer expansion, from the 7th century CE to the present day. To assume that such a spread would be based entirely on welcoming acceptance by people across the continents is rather naive, especially when the locals had already settled into their own culture for centuries if not millennia.

Away from the somewhat terse Wikipedia entry, there are publications that go into more detail. They are sources of information providing the background, the way of life, the deceit^*), sometimes the more specific circumstances and the tribulations suffered by people at the hands of a conquering religion; shedding light upon that terrible romance between blood and faith.

*)  Why 'deceit' is included: Don't read this... >> Religion - or any form of... in particular.

Here is a small selection, in no particular order:

- R L Parry, In the time of madness, Jonathan Cape, London, 2005.
- P J O'Rourke, Peace kills: America's fun new imperialism, Picador, Sydney, 2004.
- E Wright (gen. ed.), History of the world, 2 volumes, Viscount Books, UK, 1985.
- A Henrikson, Throughout the Ages: An Illustrated Chronicle of Events from 2000 BC to the Present, Orbis Publishing, London, 1983.
- J Keegan, J Darracott, The Nature of War, Jonathan-James Books, London, 1981.
- C Platt, The Atlas of Medieval Man, Peerage Books, 1979.
- C Humana (ed.), World Human Rights Guide, Pan Books, London, 1987.
- A Moorehead, The White Nile, in Great Stories of Courage & Endurance, Volume I, Reader's Digest Association Limited, London, 1983.
- D Murray, On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel, Hamas, and the Future of the West, HarperCollinsPublishers, 2025.
- A H Ali, Infidel, Free Press, New York, 2007.
- R Baer, See no Evil: The true story of a ground soldier in the CIA's war on terrorism, Crown Publishers, New York, 2002.
- N Doyle, Terror Tracker: An odyssey into pure fear, Random House Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney, 2004.
- A Levy, C Scott-Clark, Deception: Pakistan, The United States and the global nuclear weapons conspiracy, Atlantic Books, London, 2007.
- M Steyn, America Alone: The end of the world as we know it, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington DC, 2006.
The Holy Quran, translated by 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali, idara impex, New Delhi, 2005. (See also Excerpts from the Koran, https://www.otoom.net/excerptsfromkorana.htm)
- N Barber, Lords of the Golden Horn, Arrow Books, 1989.
- The Last Two Million Years, The Reader's Digest Association Limited, Sydney, 2010.
- R Burton (transl.), The Arabian Nights, Canterbury Classics, San Diego, 2011.
- S P Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Touchstone Books, London, 1998.
- H Kinder, W Hilgemann, The Penguin Atlas of World History, 2 volumes, Penguin Books Ltd, UK, 1983.
- S Wolpert, A New History of India, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997.
- Listed Terrorist Entities > Currently listed entities, Public Safety Canada, Government of Canada, 2025, https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx, accessed 21 September 2025.
- Global Terrorism Index 2025: Measuring The Impact of Terrorism, Institute for Economics & Peace, Sydney, March 2025, https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Global-Terrorism-Index-2025.pdf, accessed 21 September 2025.
- The Death Penalty Worldwide, infoplease, 5 August 2020, https://www.infoplease.com/current-events/1999/death-penalty-worldwide, accessed 19 September 2025.
- Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/, accessed 19 September 2025. (Look up just about any topic, any country, and compare)
- M Wurzinger, the social experiment, links related to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc, https://www.otoom.net/thesocialexperiment.htm.
- M Wurzinger, Demographic orientations, 10 February 2016, https://www.otoom.net/demographicorientations.htm.
- M Wurzinger, Education or Indoctrination - an analysis, 15 June 2010, https://www.otoom.net/lfoaanalysis.htm.

Were all these authors and contributors beset by irrational phobias?

Of course, another option would be to actually go to Muslim countries and see for oneself.

Harassment of the 'other'

The Report devotes considerable space to the harassment of Muslims (including the Foreword by Usman Khawaja), in particular directed at Muslim women due to their distinct dress. Aggressive behaviour can indeed be traumatising and for that very reason should be examined more closely. Understanding a problem is the first step towards solving it (assuming this is the intent behind the understanding).

Every group of people contains a certain amount of collectivism; without it there is no group. From the small scale of family, of friends, of children in the classroom, up to organisations and societies, there are certain common denominators that define the group. The mutuality is what binds the group together, and it doesn't have to be expressed openly; it can be subtle yet is part of the social contract.

The breaking of the bond can be observed when a child insists on eating a particular food in a communal setting for instance rather than what everybody else eats. The underlying message is, "I eat (such and such) because I'm not like you". There is no need to express it verbally, the message is understood. Or it could be the wearing of a national dress in the classroom when everybody else wears ordinary street clothes (usually at the insistence of a nationalist parent). Another example would be parents giving their child a, let's say, highly unusual name.

Group identity is practised when people wear certain lapel pins to distinguish themselves. A far more intentional message comes from uniforms. The effect it produces depends on the wider context and the latter's intensity. A military uniform is obviously different, but it segues with wider society because its military represents that nation. Nevertheless, in principle the message still is, "I am of a certain kind, and I'm different". It is part of human nature, wherever it may occur.

Intentional exclusion works along these lines. As any army instructor would know, telling the soldiers to polish their boots ensures that everybody will look at the instructor's boots to check if they are clean. Similarly, not applying the rules to an individual when everybody else is expected to obey them is one sure way to unseat the group's cohesion.

A conflict arises when the distinguishing elements are not only explicit but also carry unpalatable connotations. In the case of Muslim dress codes we are dealing with, firstly, a religion which is not part of Western culture, and secondly, a form of clothing that is rigidly enforced, as almost daily news reports emphasise. It also stands for the categorical expression of one's identity in relation to everybody else. Similar to children, less mature adults will react more directly, others are more convivial, but the message is there. (Regarding a less mature response: suppose in a Muslim country the woman does not cover her head - what would happen then?)

To purposefully set yourself apart from the rest invites mistrust and undermines social cohesion; it can be observed anywhere in the world. Should a demographic explicitly demonstrate that their religion is more important to them than the community they are meant to be part of it leads to opprobrium and calling the latter racism is disingenuous (and thereby causing even more adverse reactions).

So ubiquitous are the characteristics of collectivism, one would expect the Report to at least mention them in passing. Instead the adversarial response to Muslim women is immediately ascribed to "Islamophobia .. eroding social cohesion" (Report, page 7) and left at that. We read, "This has led to their constant 'othering,'", (R, p 8), without caring about the cause and effect relationships on display. "These recommendations emerged from my national listening tour of diverse Muslim communities during November and December 2024" (R, p 7), the author informs us. How the other side feels has not been bothered with.

The Report's recommendations

As the list below shows, there is hardly any governmental entity that is not meant to follow the Report's recommendations:

- Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (R, p 28)
- Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (R, p 28)
- Department of Home Affairs (R, p 29)
- Attorney-General's Department (R, p 31)
- Department of Education (R, p 32)
- Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (R, p 35)
- Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (R, p 35)
- Australian Sports Commission (R, p 35)
- Department of Social Services (R, p 35)
- Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (R, p 36)
- Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (R, p 36)
- Parliament of Australia (R, p 37)

The general nature of the recommendations (there are 54 of them) can be seen in the Report's sections that follow although some detail may differ according to the entity it is directed to.

A "commission of inquiry" needs to be established, focusing on "anti-Muslim hate", "dehumanization", and "vilification" (R, p 28). Its success or otherwise would be linked to "the impact of officially adopting, or not adopting, a working definition of Islamophobia" (R, p 29). The machinery of bureaucracy is costly and cumbersome in any case, even more so if the criteria are sufficiently evocative they become subject to constant argument and interpretation.

Already at that higher level of government the potential for ambiguity would bring Australia's position on Middle Eastern affairs into an even more problematic territory compared to what it is so far. Add the proposed specific funding program for "Islamic centres, schools, community facilities", "particularly mosques, large and small", (R, p 29), together with paying for the costs to cover the installation and maintenance of security infrastructure, and the disruption would be even higher.

The actions called for span a whole range of activities reminiscent of authoritarian states. Such as "[M]andate compulsory religious sensitivity training for all Australian Federal Police officers" (R, p 30), guidelines for the Department of Education (R, p 32) covering instructions about the "3 great Abrahamic religions" (R, p 33), effectively ensuring religious instructions in all schools and not just the religious ones (in a secular society a questionable practice in any case). The directions to teachers would make use of "the power of curricula and pedagogy to repair and strengthen social cohesion and explore the potential to implement programs that replicate its success" (R, p 34), therefore enforcing social cohesion from one direction only - exactly what does not provide for cohesion.

With those curricula in place, how would all the books listed above fare? Would teachers even be allowed to mention them? If the new rules reach all the way up to the Attorney-General's department (R, p 31) and are applied with the collaboration of the country's police forces, the effects would be immediate (and hold some surprises in store for those who up to now have been unfamiliar with autocratic regimes).

Lest the average citizen becomes forgetful of the new order, we shall have "an international day of solidarity and education on Islamophobia on 15 March through Australian embassies and missions overseas" (R, p 35), and journalists will be equipped with "insights and best practices for reporting on a range of issues about Muslim identity" (R, p 36).

To set an example, parliamentarians will undergo mandatory training programs on Islamophobia (R, p 37), and just in case they prove unreliable there shall be "clear contingencies for responses to parliamentarians who engage in hate speech" by "publicly affirming, at the next opportunity, their commitment to inclusive values, speech and behaviour, and rejection of Islamophobia".

From refashioning our governance, to the enforcement by the police, to public shaming, to starting the reeducation process in schools - it all sounds like a religious version of North Korea.

The big picture

Protecting and safeguarding a faith is nothing new. The Inquisition used to be the Catholic Church's specially dedicated office, then renamed the Holy Office, and today it is known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [8]. Its current incarnation was deemed necessary because "we [the Catholic Church] have not always acknowledged the profound changes that have taken place in the Church and in the Roman Curia in recent times". (A modern view on the Inquisition that seeks to rectify some of the more outlandish claims is provided by Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition [9], although what remains is brutal enough.)

The above reference is relevant. For Catholics there is an office that oversees the proper adherence to their faith, adjusted to the contingencies of the day. During more brutal times the Church availed itself of torture waiting in the wings for just about anyone, and once society had moved on the means downgraded to merely inform its officials. Today in Australia we have The Office of the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, relating itself to Islam and operating within the benign environment of the nation's Constitution.

That environment is a product of enlightened times, the results of the "profound changes" alluded to above that have taken place over the last couple of centuries in the West. On the other hand, Islam did not undergo those changes, and even today its societies practise a form of retribution similar to the original Inquisition in Medieval Europe.

If the Report's recommendations should be implemented, the effectiveness of the ensuing controls would only be limited by the current availability of the legal means in our democracy, and these can change.

Above it all is the fundamental question in any democracy: how tolerant should one be towards intolerance? In a democracy diverse views and/or political parties are allowed, but what if a party or some group aims to undermine what that very system stands for? The response to such a threat would not necessarily come from a diligent study of the legislative framework (configured as it is along the lines of a democratic system which presumes a certain degree of coherence), but would rely on the readiness or otherwise of the citizenry to defend their society per se (and never mind what this or that statute says).

An example of what happens when citizens take the law into their own hands was on display during the Cronulla riots in Sydney [10]. From the early 1990's onwards Lebanese gangs tried to establish a drug trade in cafés, bars and night clubs, and on the beaches women were accosted for wearing bikinis or going topless. Neither the police nor the politicians did much about it and so it all erupted on 12 December 2005 and the riots went on for five days.

Once members from the general public get involved any more particular sentiments become subsumed under a general opposition, as recent protest marches have shown once again (such as the pro-Palestinian march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge [11] which presented an opportunity for anyone dissatisfied with current politics). Words have their own connotations, and like the ripples in a pond the more provocative they are the bigger the waves they create, forming overlaps that amplify each other. It doesn't help when someone like Western Australian senator Fatima Payman declares women are not oppressed in Iran, "to ensure they have a voice .. women are involved in the democratic process" [12], thereby adding yet more controversial memes.

The effects of language - especially modified language - are vividly demonstrated in George Orwell's 1984 [13]. Outside the wider reality sentences like "women are involved in the democratic process" can be pressed into any kind of service, including an authoritarianism under which the "democratic process" is simply an alluring label to hide the reality on the ground. As Big Brother says in 1984: WAR IS PEACE. SLAVERY IS FREEDOM. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Has George Orwell ever been part of Islam's cultural vocabulary?

Given the controls envisaged by the Report, perhaps now its statement "[F]reedom of speech is a critical pillar of a free society" (R, p 20) appears under a new light.

Coming back to the fundamental question posed above, the issue of adversarial intolerance can have far-reaching consequences. If disruptions to the social contract are not addressed in time, the emerging reaction may easily place itself outside the existing framework because anything less will be perceived as unsatisfactory. The resultant intransigence, by whatever parties may be involved at the time, paves the way towards autocracy. Then the statutes no longer provide for the safety net they are supposed to represent and the outcome will be anyone's guess.

Such a development can be depicted schematically in the shape of social pyramids where activists form the top with lesser involved elements towards the bottom.

The world is in the process of readjusting the power blocs established after World War II. Driven by globalisation, technology and the need for sustainability, industrialised as well as not so industrialised nations configure themselves in accordance with their own perceptions and capacities. The article 2050: Age of the Silverback [14] deals with those reorientations. Written in December 2007, by now there have been 42 developments around the world already moving towards that scenario (mentioned under Parallels [15]).

Pressures such as the effects of climate change, underemployment, and the need for social services configure the perceptions. The effects of ideologies make for additional challenges. In line with their respective intensities they drive society towards extremes with the resultant polarisation making the middle ground less and less effective. Under the right circumstances these are the social, ie cognitive, dynamics playing their role under whatever cultural auspices they may occur. (How, for instance, would a country's chequerboard of economic relationships and/or dependencies fare amongst political/military alliances?)

When it comes to the religious variety (since religions cannot be simply abolished) what could be termed the utility principle might be employed: Dealing with reality by turning a blind eye to transgressions from the doctrine to avoid a confrontation with the overall symbolism. It would require cooperation on both sides. What is suggested in the Report runs counter to this principle. Nations will have to ask themselves whether being sidetracked by religious interferences is worth the while when so much is at stake.

Considering the progress of human cultures over the centuries it may well be that in that grand theatre of delusion we will finally obliterate ourselves from this planet. Then again, logic and reason might enable a few remnants to dedicate their time to learning, knowledge and wisdom and so reach for nothing less than the universe itself.

PS:  In the meantime it is becoming increasingly imperative for advanced nations to safeguard themselves against religious and/or ideological disruptions; the world is entering a dangerous phase. One counter measure would be the adoption of a Basic Charter, a clear set of principles in front of any further constitution or such.

References

1. Phobias - an overview, healthdirect, https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/phobias-overview, accessed 17 September 2025.

2. A Malik, A National Response to Islamophobia: A Strategic Framework for Inclusion, Safety and Prosperity, The Office of the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia (OSECI), September 2025, https://www.oseci.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/national-response-final-report.pdf, accessed 14 September 2025.

3. A Koster, 'Terrifying reality': Islamophobia report handed down as envoy calls for 'urgent' action, SBS News, 12 September 2025, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/islamophobia-report-handed-down-as-envoy-calls-for-urgent-action/zo982rvwu, accessed 19 September 2025.

4. D A Gallagher, I J Gallagher, (transl), St. Augustine, The Catholic and Manichaean Ways of Life, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, 1966, (pp. xi-xv).

5. ibid, inside cover.

6. C Thuilier, Australian spiders: the 10 most dangerous, Australian Geographic, 16 August 2012, https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/nature-wildlife/2012/08/australian-spiders-the-10-most-dangerous/, accessed 20 September 2025.

7. History of Islam, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam, accessed 20 September 2025.

8. B Joseph, Why did the Vatican drop the Inquisition?, Union of Catholic Asian News, Paris, https://www.ucanews.com/news/why-did-the-vatican-drop-the-inquisition/91358, 10 February 2021, accessed 24 September 2025.

9. H Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision, Phoenix, London, 1998.

10. L McIlveen, K Lawrence, Nation's day of shame, The Courier Mail, Brisbane, 12 December 2005.

11. K Watson, T Wilson, Tens of thousands turn out for Sydney pro-Palestinian march, BBC News, 4 August 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clydnvw1dg5o, accessed 24 September 2025.

12. L Leeming, Senator bucks Iran 'narrative', The Courier Mail, 25 February 2025.

13. G Orwell, 1984, The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne, 2024.

14. M Wurzinger, 2050: Age of the Silverback, 2007, http://otoomblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/2050-age-of-silverback.html.

15. M Wurzinger, Parallels, https://www.otoom.net/parallels.htm.

28 September 2025

© Martin Wurzinger - see Terms of Use