It seems that our politicians, police, intelligence “experts” & some in the media are cleverly attempting to extend the anti-terrorism narrative to discredit genuine civil protest.

As anyone with a minute to think would realise, there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with “radicalisation” … even the term “radical” is relatively innocuous by definition “a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims”.

Based on that standard definition, those who protested against the Springboks tour as part of the anti–apartheid movement; those who protested against the Vietnam War & later incursions, including Iraq, Afghanistan & Syria; those who campaigned in favour of rights to abortion; those who campaigned against deaths in custody; those who campaigned against the damming of the Franklin; suffragettes; those who have campaigned for the legalisation of prostitution; those who have campaigned for equal marriage; those who have fought for open, transparent & accountable government; those who have campaigned against the erosion of our civil rights & freedoms; those who have campaigned for a Republic; those who have campaigned against Mosques, coal seam gas mining, long-line fishing, paedophilia in our religious & educational institutions, equal rights, affirmative action, indeed, those who have demonstrated against any government policy of any type are all by definition “radicals” & at times they have engaged in acts of civil disobedience or breaches of the law to advance their campaign, but they should not & never have up until now been potentially exposed to being lumped-in with “extreme” or “violent” terrorist behaviour.

Of greater concern in all of this is the government’s determination to stifle public debate & discourse by implying that strong views that are not in accord with mainstream policy settings are dangerous & represent a threat to our society. It is of even greater concern that such efforts are being pursued within our education system.

If we look at the language being employed by government, it is clear that they are promoting the belief that sees “violent extremism” as a natural extension of “radicalisation”.

I’m not trying to say that violent extremism can’t be a consequence of radicalisation, but I am saying that demonising “radicalisation” per se is a dishonest use of the terrorism debate designed to stifle activism in a society that is losing more & more of its civil liberties on a daily basis.

I believe that is a far more dangerous development that the so-called threat of domestic terrorism.

Apologies for the rant.