Australians fighting in Syria could lose citizenship, Scott Morrison signals | World news | theguardian.com

Further to similar British measures (British fighters in Syria stripped of UK citizenship), appears that Australia is also considering similar measures. Given upcoming changes to The Canadian Citizenship Act, this may be something that we may see in Canada as well:

Australia, the minister said, had powers to stop potential combatants leaving Australia through the cancellation of travel documents, but added the Australian government lacked the British government’s more wide-ranging powers under the citizenship act. In the UK, the home secretary can strip dual nationals of their British citizenship if it has been obtained fraudulently, or if citizenship is not in the public interest.

“We are looking right now at all the options that are before us to strengthen powers when necessary,” Morrison told 2GB on Monday. “We are looking at every option available to us. We don’t want those troubles in this country and people who bring them here should not come.”

Referring explicitly to the revocation of Australian citizenship for dual nationals, Morrison said the Australian government would “definitely want to have things of that order to enable you to protect the country from the incursion of that sort of violent and unhelpful views”.

“You want to arm yourself with all the necessary powers to deal with what is a very serious threat to Australia if people come here and seek to stir up trouble,” the minister said. “The Abbott government is pretty clear: we are not going to put up with this sort of thing.”

Australians fighting in Syria could lose citizenship, Scott Morrison signals | World news | theguardian.com.

Liberals’ Quebec charter would combat religious extremism, Couillard says

The Liberal Party of Quebec response to the Charter are unspecified initiatives to combat religious extremism. Will be interesting to see the details:

“To those who come here and take advantage of our freedoms and democracy to then attack them and ultimately destroy them, we are saying loud and clear: ‘You are not welcome here, we will fight you, we will go after you,’ ” Mr. Couillard said …

« À ceux qui viennent chez nous pour profiter de nos libertés et de notre démocratie pour ensuite s’y attaquer et ultimement les détruire, nous disons haut et fort : vous n’êtes pas les bienvenus chez nous, nous vous combattrons, nous vous poursuivrons sans relâche. »

Liberals’ Quebec charter would combat religious extremism, Couillard says – The Globe and Mail.

Couillard veut débarrasser le Québec des intégristes religieux | Le Devoir

Campus segregation: ‘religious freedom’ cannot be allowed to trump equality – Telegraph

There has been a fair amount of controversy in the UK over segregated lectures by Islamic or other fundamentalists in universities. This opinion piece in the Telegraph argues, correctly, that such segregation is a step backwards and should not be encouraged or tolerated:

In any society, pluralist or otherwise, we are constantly forced to assign priorities to different values. Religious freedom – the right to worship, to free association, to a diet consistent with one’s faith, and so on – is rightly accorded respect. But that freedom cannot be allowed to distort and trump the ideals of the modern academy, at the heart of which is the notion of a scholarly community divided by civilised argument, not race, faith or gender.

Campus segregation: ‘religious freedom’ cannot be allowed to trump equality – Telegraph.

Counter-extremism is getting smarter

Commentary on the new UK counter-terrorism strategy, praising the broadening of focus to tackle extremism of all kinds, not just radical Islam, and ongoing serious effort to reduce anti-Muslim prejudice:

no counter-extremism strategy will unite us all. Such work lies at the notoriously fragile intersection that separates civil liberties from national security. But for the first time in a long while there are signs that we are moving in a better direction, and have acknowledged some failings in the past. While this week’s recommendations provide us with a foundation rather than a coherent strategy, they are a useful starting point for us all.

Counter-extremism is getting smarter | Matthew Goodwin | Comment is free | The Guardian.

And from the other side of the political spectrum, The Daily Mail takes this tack, which reads it into a broader critique of multiculturalism, defined in UK terms as promoting separateness:

David Cameron: Mistake of multiculturalism aided extremists | Mail Online

For the actual report, well-thought out and written as most UK strategies, link below:

Link to UK counter-extremism strategy

Muslim countries must tackle gender gap head-on

Usual good commentary by Sheema Khan on gender equality issues in Muslim countries. Arab Development Report has similar findings (not all Arabs are Muslim and vice versa of course).

Reflects, in part, the weakness of the madrassas, mosques and Imams in not addressing and advocating these issues head-on. As she notes, the efforts to educate women will likely change things in the long-term, but as we have seen, some of the most fundamentalist and radicalized have benefited from good education.

Muslim countries must tackle gender gap head-on – The Globe and Mail.

Theresa May must not further erode Britons’ rights to citizenship

An opinion piece in the Guardian by Matthew Gibney on removal of citizenship rights for suspected terrorists. Given there has been some talk in Canadian circles as well of similar measures, of interest. While the people that have been stripped of their citizenship are “not nice people”, the question of due process and the rule of law is an important one, although I would not be as absolutist of the right of citizenship in such cases.

Theresa May must not further erode Britons’ rights to citizenship | Matthew Gibney | Comment is free | The Guardian.

I’m sorry, but we have to talk about the barbarism of modern Islamist terrorism – Telegraph Blogs

Hard to argue against this harsh critique of modern Islamic-inspired terrorism and the weakness of relativism in condemning it for what it is: senseless, aimless, barbaric violence.

What we have today, uniquely in human history, is a terrorism that seems myopically focused on killing as many people as possible and which has no clear political goals and no stated territorial aims. The question is, why? It is not moral masturbation to ask this question or to point out the peculiarity and perversity of modern Islamist violence. My penny’s worth is that this terrorism speaks to a profound crisis of politics and of morality. Where earlier terrorist groups were restrained both by their desire to appear as rational political actors with a clear goal in mind and by basic moral rules of human behaviour – meaning their violence was often bloody, yes, but rarely focused narrowly on committing mass murder – today’s Islamist terrorists appear to float free of normal political rules and moral compunctions. This is what is so infuriating about the BBC’s refusal to call these groups terrorists – because if anything, and historically speaking, even the term terrorist might be too good for them.

I’m sorry, but we have to talk about the barbarism of modern Islamist terrorism – Telegraph Blogs.

Le complot islamiste n’est pas une menace, dit Gérard Bouchard

A dose of reality from Gérard Bouchard:

Il n’y a pas à s’étonner, cependant, du malaise et de la peur qui accompagnent la présence de croyances religieuses. « La rencontre interculturelle interpelle toujours au fond de chacun ce qui s’y trouve de moins rationnel – ou de plus émotif -, à savoir : l’identité, les valeurs, les idéaux, les traditions […] », a-t-il dit.

Le complot islamiste n’est pas une menace, dit Gérard Bouchard | Le Devoir.

When prodigal jihadis come home: Brender

Good piece by Natalie Brender on the issue of returning jihadis. Never easy, and touchy, but other countries have embraced finding such counter-narratives as one means to reduce potential future jihadis. I witnessed one of the UK initiatives in this area; while I cannot judge the results, the approach was interesting and appeared to engage youth at risk and have merit:

One means of creating “counter-narratives” about Islam and militant politics is by drawing on the credibility of those who once embraced those ideas and now renounce them. To this end, the brief [U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations] urges, efforts at countering violent extremism should include “[e]ducating Muslim thought leaders in mosques and on university campuses through workshops and testimonies from former radicals about why Islamist hardliners threaten Muslim communities.”

Such efforts must originate within Muslim communities; they will not succeed if viewed as propaganda by Western governments. But Western governments can help by providing resources to enable Muslim-led counter-extremism activities to succeed. For that reason, Canada’s government, and Canadians, should keep an open mind to the possibility that some fighters returning to this country might now be ex-jihadists ready to support the anti-extremist cause.

When prodigal jihadis come home: Brender | Toronto Star.

Muslims finding common ground with Christians: The path to peace – The Globe and Mail

A good example of an inter-faith initiative, Common Word, trying to reduce violence between Muslims and Christians. While I am not sure how effective this initiative will be among the more militant fundamentalists, it nevertheless is providing a forum and space for moderates, and respect for the commonalities among different faiths.

Muslims finding common ground with Christians: The path to peace – The Globe and Mail.