Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Khayre was no terrorist, he was an ice addict who had lost all grip of reality

By Kuranda Seyit - posted Thursday, 22 June 2017


Two weeks ago, Yacqup Khayre allegedly attended an escort agency located in Brighton and then shot a man in the foyer and then took a female worker hostage and demanded she call a TV station, then allegedly took the phone and said, 'This is for Al-Qaeda. This is for IS.'

When police arrived he fired several shots before he himself was killed by police, in the process he injured three police officers acting in the line of duty.

It is all very sad. We saw the pathetic figure of this young man in photos all over the press, whom, from all accounts, was a troubled man, starting from his youth and leading into his adulthood with his addiction to drugs, namely ice. He came to Australia as a refugee (although it is really irrelevant). He grew up in Australia and is a product of this society. Most young people who become ice addicts are not really to blame, they lose grip on reality and spiral out of control and commit acts of violence. Of course, he is not completely innocent for his addiction, for ultimately he made the decision to use. But as we have seen so regularly in the media, many Australians succumb to the dangers of ice and let loose their inner demons. It is a familiar scenario.

Advertisement

Khayre is no exception. The question is this a terrorist matter or just a violent murder from an ice addicted madman? The police themselves are not sure as the matter is still under investigation.

The Australian government defines terrorism as: an act, or a threat to commit an act, that is done with the intention to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, and the act causes death, serious harm or endangers a person.

There was an act of violence. Yes. There was a cause of death. Yes. One could argue that it was in a public place. The question and we will never know the real answer, is what was his intention? Was his intention to advance an ideological cause? One could hardly say that he was acting on behalf of IS or Al Qaeda, because you are either working for one or the other, you cant work for both. It's like saying I am a Royalist and a Republican at the same time. It doesn't work that way, you can't support two diametrically opposing viewpoints.

Khayre was clearly confused. So how authentic are his claims? His credibility is already in question. So it still remains, was his intention "to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause"?

The man had a violent past. He was on parole. He had no fixed place of abode. He had no community and was ostracized by his family. Then what really was there left for him?

There are striking similarities with the Lindt Café siege gunman, Man Haron Monis.

Advertisement

He was a man with a troubled past. A refugee. A history of mental illness. He was on bail when he clearly should have been behind bars. He took several people hostage and shot one of his hostages before the café was stormed and he himself was killed. He demanded to speak to the media and made some ludicrous statements and demanded an IS flag which in fact was simply a cloth with some Islamic inscriptions which are used by millions of Muslims worldwide and often used on the flags of several Islamic nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Monis was confused about who he was acting for; he was a shi'ite claiming to be an IS supporter, IS being a Sunni group who hate shi'ites. And he also did not know what the IS flag looked like.

But most importantly this man was a violent criminal and was facing some serious jail time, if he had gone to trial. That never happened because our courts failed us once again. Just like they failed us in the case of Khayre and other violent criminals like Adrian Bayley who raped and murdered Jill Meagher. Bayley should never have been released.

But that brings me back to my point. Khayre and Monis were two peas from the same pod. They were violent criminals who had no desire to live, they lived in a hopeless situation and had given up for all intents and purposes and decided to go out with a bang. It was their chance to make themselves infamous and to go down in the history books albeit for all the wrong reasons. Neither had a true connection to an 'ideological cause'. They were in my opinion, attention seekers who used Islam and IS to lure the media. The media and police are drawn to people like Khayre, because he ticks the boxes and it has the desired effect – sensational headlines and massive interest in the story.

Today, we are so familiar with the man who kills in the name of Islam. Islam equates to terrorism in media terms. It appears that today only Muslims are terrorists. But when a white supremacist commits similar acts of violence they are labeled unstable, troubled, going through depression or they had a problem with drugs or family breakdown.

Just over two weeks ago, 35 year old Jeremy Joseph Christian, stabbed to death two men in Portland, Oregon, after they came to the aid of two Muslims who were being abused by Christian. This was clearly motivated by an ideological cause, his belief that white Christian Americans were superior to others. Yet what were the charges?

Two counts of aggravated murder, one count of attempted aggravated murder, one count of first-degree assault, one count of second-degree assault, five counts of unlawful use of a weapon, three counts of second-degree intimidation and two counts of menacing. No mention of terrorism whatsoever.

The Burke Street hoon, who killed 6 innocent people, was an unstable ice addict. If his name had been Mustafa, then we would never had heard the end of it…Terror in Melbourne CBD! City under siege! Lone wolf Terrorist. Why is Dimitrious Gargasoulas not a lone wolf terrorist then?

He committed an act of violence. Yes. There were multiple deaths. Yes. It was in a public place. Yes. Similar to the London attacks he used a car as a deadly weapon. What was his ideological intention? He was angry against the world. He felt victimized and had a chip on his shoulder against the police.

The Government also states that, 'a person may be convicted of a terrorist act offence if the person was reckless as to whether his or her actions would amount to a terrorist act'. Was Gargasoulas reckless? Did it amount to terror in the streets? He definitely terrorized Melbourne that day.

These cases are complex and there is no one size fits all when we talk about radicalization or extremism. However, we need to seriously reassess the way we define terrorism. There are dozens of copy cat killings which are not necessarily what they first appear to be. The definite common denominator in all the alleged terrorist acts that have occurred in the past three years in Australia is that all the perpetrators had a history of mental illness or violent crime. They were all 'lone wolves', they were not sophisticated assassins, with years of training and links to terror support networks.

Yes, there are some crazy people out there and some of them are Muslim and some are undoubtedly driven by an ideology, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world, equally abhor these violent actions and condemn them unequivocally.

We need to stop assuming just because someone is Muslim that when they commit a violent crime that it automatically becomes a terrorist act; because they were lone wolves; because they were 'apparently' representing IS.

Consistency in reporting these crimes is important and if we are to continue this approach then we need to call it the same way for everyone not just one segment of society. It's quite ironic, because by singling out Muslims, we are in fact, playing into IS' hands and creating the fear that they want to see in the world and further widen the rift between between 'us and them'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Kuranda Seyit is a council member of the Sydney Peace Foundation, Director of the Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations (FAIR) and an independent documentary film maker.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Kuranda Seyit

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy