Selda Dagistanli

Global fears, local anxiety : policing, counterterrorism and moral panic over 'bikie gang wars' in New South Wales

This article proceeds in three main parts. First, it provides an account of a moral panic that unfolded during a short period in the Australian state of New South Wales over warring motorbike or ‘bikie’ gangs. Second, it sketches a recent history of laws in New South Wales that have expanded police powers, including ‘anti-bikie’ gang laws. The article shows how policing and crime control has become politicised since 9/11 and, accordingly, the extension of police powers has entailed the blurring of the functions of police and security services. This, in turn, raises serious concerns about civil liberties and the rule of law. Third, the article interprets the events surrounding the ‘bikie gang wars’ using classic and more recent moral panic theory as well as ideas around the ‘new penology’. The article concludes by considering the utility of applying the concept of moral panic to the bikie case.

Defining the conversation about Shari’a: Representations in Australian newspapers

Debates about Shari’a law and legal pluralism have come to the fore of political discourse in many western multicultural societies including Australia. The mass media, in particular newspapers, have been active in reporting on Shari’a related news items and in doing so, have made a significant contribution to shaping political debate across western nations from governmental to grassroots levels. Understanding how newspapers report on Shari’a will provide important insights into how political discourse about Islam, western Muslims and Shari’a is formed. Utilizing the example of newspapers in Sydney, Australia, this article draws upon methodologies used to analyse the negative portrayals of new religious movements in the press. The article aims to analyse the way that Shari’a has been reported in key newspapers in Sydney over the last five years. It explores a variety of issues influencing the reporting of Shari’a including reporting of Shari’a at the local and international levels, the division between ‘good’ Shari’a (Islamic finance) and ‘bad’ Shari’a (family and criminal law) and differences between newspapers and media owners.

Shari’a and Everyday Life in Sydney

ABSTRACT This article investigates how Shari’a is experienced in the everyday life of 57 Muslims from Western Sydney. It focuses on their opinions about its application in Australia, and on how they negotiate their lives around the necessity or non-necessity of adhering to Shari’a principles. The findings show that their observance of Islam tends to be negotiated in their everyday life within the framework of the Australian law, to which they show strong adherence. Respondents strongly reported the inaccurate picture of Shari’a that the media have painted. For this reason, the informants are reticent to have discussions in the public sphere about the implementation of officially recognised Shari’a within an Australian legal system for fear that it would stoke the flames of Islamophobic sentiment. This is an impediment to the development of a post-secular Australia.

A response to comments

The authors reply to the comments by Catherine Blaya, Abdulhadi Khalaf, Ermete Mariani, Anna Neumaier, and Armando Salvatore, explicating some arguments of the original article.

The limits of multiculturalism in Australia? The Shari’a flogging case of R v. Raad, Fayed, Cifci and Coskun:

This article focuses on the marginal extremities – the limits – of Shari’a practices in Australia, through the example of a criminal case in which four Sydney-based Muslim men whipped a Muslim convert to punish him for his excessive consumption of drugs and alcohol. The men claimed they acted in line with the doctrines of Shari’a practice to ‘purify’ or absolve the victim of his sins. While the case was tried before a magistrate in a lower court, it is argued in this article that its social and political significance was wider, reaching into contemporary debates around multiculturalism and immigration from non-western, non-liberal and mainly Muslim nations. Mainstream media and political narratives viewed the whipping as an example of the moral dangers of accommodating Shari’a norms, eliding the differences between peaceable Shari’a and its violent extremities, while situating the case at the limits of multicultural accommodation. This article interrogates the objectionable margins of some cultural practices through this limit case. At the same time it questions the limits or limitations of a multiculturalism that homogeneously views the practices of entire ethnic or religious groups as violent and incommensurable with dominant norms, while using these understandings as a justification for marginalising these groups.

Terrorism and Anti-terrorism Laws

This chapter addresses Australian legislative and juridical responses to acts officially defined as terrorism, briefly summarising counter-terrorism measures from the events of September 11, 2001 to 2016. We argue that counter-terrorism measures since the 2001 attacks contravene principles of due process, separation of powers and human rights. Moreover, being pre-emptive and granting extraordinary discretionary power to police and security agencies, they have shifted the burden of proof and have criminalised vaguely defined “preparatory acts”. The anti-terrorism laws have produced wrongful terrorism charges and have labelled as “terrorist” several isolated actions of mentally disturbed perpetrators such as in the Martin Place siege of 2014. Additionally, such laws have been used disproportionately against Muslim men. The record shows that these counter-terrorism measures are neither proportional to nor consistent with the actual threat of terrorism in Australia.

Perception of Shari'a in Sydney and New York newspapers

Drawing on methodologies used to analyse the negative portrayals of new religious movements in the press, this chapter analyzes the way Shari’a has been reported in key newspapers in Sydney and New York over the last 5 years. It differentiates between perceptions of Islamic law as practiced in these global cities, as well as in other foreign countries and examines the different levels of perception. The chapter also investigates portrayals and perceptions of ‘good’ Shari’a (i.e. Islamic banking) as opposed to ‘bad’ Shari’a (i.e. family and criminal law).