In light of recent views expressed by such high-profile Australians as Sonia Kruger, Andrew Bolt and Pauline Hanson that we should stop all Muslim immigration, it’s worth analysing the issue in depth. Of course, it was the Australian Protectionist Party, Australia’s ORIGINAL Islam-wary political party, that was advocating a halt to all Muslim immigration, long before these three prominent figures publicly expressed their views.
The purpose of this article is certainly NOT to incite hostility toward Muslims, but to make a reasoned case as to why it’s for the betterment of all Australians, including Muslim Australians, that we put a stop to any further Muslim immigration – and why it’s such an important issue that should be addressed.
So, let’s get to the nitty gritty, and go through the issues to understand why.
Any reasonable cost-benefit analysis must surely realise that Muslim immigration represents for Australia, a very substantial net socio-economic COST as opposed to benefit.
* The terrorism threat
The first and most obvious issue is the terrorism threat. Australia is nowadays a changed country, and not for the better. Whereas once Australians attended ANZAC Day ceremonies, unified as one on our most sacred national day, nowadays we need armed police, in case the day becomes the target of Muslim extremists seeking to inflict mass casualties. Nowadays, air travel in and from Australia requires vastly ramped up security. So do major sporting events, and, in fact, any major gatherings in the public space require a new security approach. And the reason why is simple — the Muslim terrorism threat that, until very recently, simply didn’t exist.
In the last decade or so, more than two dozen Islamist radicals have been convicted of having plotted terrorist acts against Australia. And whilst it’s true that our intelligence and security forces have done a fine job in protecting Australia, it is extremely naive to believe that they will always be able to do so. There can be no doubt that the intent to inflict harm upon our society is there. This year (2016), a teen from Melbourne pleaded guilty to intending to run down and behead a police officer during Anzac Day commemorations in Melbourne. A Sydney teen, found with Islamic State propaganda, who had been in a “deradicalisation programme”, was also arrested and refused bail after he was charged for having plotted to gain a firearm, and to make a bomb to strike with on ANZAC Day.
Now, it’s probably quite true that your average Australian has more chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a Muslim terrorist. But it’s very important to realise that the COSTS of terrorism go far beyond merely the terrorism threat itself. Terrorism is not merely “just another form of criminality” — it is an attempt to make a major political statement to the society, to profoundly change the society, and to create a deep sense of community fear — whilst appearing to empower its proponents, in the hope of recruiting more terrorists to their cause. In Australia, the new terrorism threat posed by radicalised Muslims is unprecedented on this level. Terrorism also requires a RESPONSE, and besides making our public events and venues much less safe than they once were, Australia’s counter-terrorism response is now literally costing us billions of dollars.
For example, the Abbott government’s 2015 Budget allocated an additional $450m to be spent “fighting terrorist propaganda, bolstering intelligence agencies”.
And one effect that combatting terrorism has on Australia is to increasingly compromise the privacy, civil rights, and due legal processes of citizens, as we move increasingly to seemingly becoming a Police State. Privacy advocates were recently up in arms about the federal government’s plan to arbitrarily store the metadata of all citizens, but it’s been imposed nonetheless.
Both state and federal governments have brought in their own new anti-terrorism laws, which will grant police new powers, such as holding suspects for 14 days without charge. Critics attacked such laws as “a recipe for police abuse”.
According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, our new counter-terrorism laws “can have a profound impact on fundamental human rights and freedoms”, including:
* The right to a fair trial;
* The right to freedom from arbitrary detention and arrest;
* The right not to be subject to torture;
* The right to privacy;
* The right to freedom of association and expression;
* The right to non-discrimination;
* The right to an effective remedy for a breach of human rights.”
Now, a lot of people wouldn’t care that much if it was actual terrorists being subjected to such things, but what if you were innocent? And what about the slippery slope effect and what it might do to policing generally?
The government is also developing a national facial recognition “capability” that would ultimately cover every Australian citizen with a passport or drivers’ licence. This also has privacy advocates very concerned. According to one expert “The FBI accepts a 20 per cent inaccuracy so that’s one in five images that could be false identification of an individual.”
Even the prospect of Australians needing a new National ID card to help cope with the terrorism threat has been raised. And it’s support is coming from perhaps an unlikely source, given the historically strong opposition to a National ID card in Australian nationalist circles. Yet it has now been touted by none other than Pauline Hanson.
* Higher welfare costs
Muslim unemployment in Australia is BETWEEN TWO AND THREE TIMES the national average.
This exposes once again, a culturally incompatible immigration programme. It is a clear indication of the linguistic and cultural barriers that exist for Muslim immigrants in a modern, secular English-speaking Western country like Australia. Undoubtedly, some of the dress standards of Muslims would deem them unemployable in some industries, and be a natural barrier for some non-Muslim employers.
The decline of manufacturing in Australia must also be mentioned — as it means that many fit, young, men from the ‘working class’ — the natural blue collar workforce for heavy industries — may find it harder to get a job. This undoubtedly affects people from some migrant backgrounds, and may in turn help to increase a sense of alienation, and lead to the radicalisation of young unemployed Muslim men.
Crime is a constant, and, in some areas, growing problem in Australia. The cost of crime to Australia is put at $36 billion a year, which means it costs each Australian more than $1,500 a year. In Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, Muslims are imprisoned at three times the average. Both Victoria and New South Wales have specific Middle Eastern crime squads to counter the now entrenched crime culture amongst some Middle Eastern immigrant groups. Barely a week goes by nowadays without someone being shot in Sydney’s West, undoubtedly as a product of turf wars between rival drug gangs. This has been going on for some time now, and will likely continue well into the foreseeable future.
* The Sydney Muslim riot of 2012
One especially notable event occurred in Sydney on 15th September 2012, when hundreds of mostly angry young Muslim men took to the street and stormed the Sydney CBD. The riot occurred as a response to a low-budget film about the prophet Mohammed called “The Innocence of Muslims” that was produced by an Egyptian Coptic Christian, and was due for release in the USA. Similar scenes of rioting Muslims had occurred in many other countries throughout the world in response to the film.
The result of the riot was that six police officers and 19 protestors were injured, and nine arrests were made. Terrified people not involved in the protest fled the scene, and parts of the Sydney CBD were shut down. Bottles and other objects were thrown at police officers, property was damaged, including a police car, protesters carried black flags of Sunni terrorist groups and signs saying, “Behead all those who insult the prophet”, “Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell”, “Shariah will dominate the world”, and “Obama Obama, we love Osama”.
The Sydney Muslim Riot of September 15th 2012 was unprecedented in Australian history, and as expected, a PR disaster for Australia’s Muslim community. But it reflected so many things about Muslim immigration in Australia, as well as the changing technology that has now made us in many ways a “smaller world”. It demonstrated a lack of assimilability of Muslims to Australia, the passionate solidarity displayed with Muslims overseas, a “persecution complex”, and a real hostility shown toward mainstream Western values (including free speech) from within the Muslim community.
* The nature of Muslims and Islam
Whilst there is certainly considerable ethnic variation amongst Muslims in terms of crime and other anti-social behaviour, it’s important to realise that Islam inevitably produces a strong sense of solidarity among its adherents, and that this is probably even more so, when Muslims are a minority living within a secular Western country. In an age of emphasis on “group identity” and “victim” culture, this sense of solidarity perhaps becomes more profound, and can have serious ramifications.
That said, it should also be remembered that there are vast gulfs within Islam itself — between differing Islamic belief systems — globally, the rivalry between Sunni and Shia in particular, is very striking, and has already seen politically-motivated violence in Australia.
It’s very well documented that wherever Islam has a significant presence in the world, there exists violent political extremism, as some devout adherents take the doctrine to extremes. Historically, Islam has always been a conquering religion, that has been brought to many locations by the sword, and not by gentle persuasion. This remains very true in many parts of the world today where conflict exists, although religious zealotry often overlaps with ethnic and tribal rivalries that may have deep historical roots.
Of course, it’s true that another Middle Eastern-derived Abrahamic religion, Christianity, has also historically been a conquering religion. But any reasonable analysis of Christianity in the Western world today shows that comparatively few very acts of political violence are motivated by over-zealous interpretations of Christian doctrine. Unlike Islam, Christianity has undergone a Restoration, a Reformation, and a Renaissance in the last few hundred years, whilst nowadays secularism has become the dominant factor in the increasingly less Christian West. The West has changed in other ways — a respect for democracy, human rights, an empowered female gender, combined with increased knowledge and social and global awareness that have come with sustained economic growth and rapidly advancing technology.
With the exception of Northern Ireland, we in the Western world have been spared the horror of serious religious conflict in the 20th century. Unfortunately, this has made us very complacent. It has perhaps been forgotten that for hundreds of years, following the Protestant Reformation inspired by Martin Luther, there was often conflict between Catholics and Protestants in both Europe and European colonies. A good many wars, revolutions, terrorist acts, and deep social divisions existed throughout Europe, at least partly because of these religious divides. And this frequently happened not just between European nations, but also within nations and communities in Europe.
But whilst Christianity has reformed, according to many scholars, Islam basically has not. Attempts to reform Islam have been commonly met with hostility from its most devout adherents. Furthermore, as the West has become more secular, more materialistic, and more socially and economically progressive, many indications are that the Islamic world is becoming more devout and more radicalised, with fundamentalism growing disturbingly.
And it’s a complete delusion to believe that deradicalisation programmes in the West will be successful. In an article for The Spectator, Australian author and psychiatrist Dr Tanveer Ahmed, who has worked extensively with at-risk Muslim youth in Australia, called deradicalisation an “emerging pseudoscience”, and doubted its effectiveness, despite us now spending tens of millions of taxpayers dollars on such programmes.
This perhaps highlights the tendency of some to naively believe that the “goodness of human nature” will win out in the struggle against evil, and how “government has the solutions”. More likely, deradicalisation plans will be nothing more than mere window dressing, and an opportunity for politicians to be “seen to be doing something” about a serious problem.
* The attitude of non-Muslim Australians toward Muslims
Research in both Europe and Australia is clearly pointing to a growing community distrust and anxiety about the presence of Islam. And with every Islamic-inspired terrorist strike, act of riotous behaviour, or report of sexual misbehaviour from Muslim immigrants now frequently being reported from Europe, it is hard not to imagine that this distrust will only grow.
And no matter the good or deluded intentions of those who seek to speak in defence of Muslims and try to “build bridges” between Muslims and non-Muslims, the fact remains that fear and prejudice are extremely powerful forces in human behaviour. They can not merely be conveniently dismissed as invalid! Any amount of self-righteous moral posturing from “diversity” advocates is hardly likely to change the basic community mindset in the new age of Islamic-inspired terrorism in Europe.
This brings us to a key element of human group behaviour. The dominant host people in a society will ONLY tolerate minorities PROVIDED they don’t feel threatened by them. If they DO begin to feel threatened by minorities, sentiment can turn against them very sharply. This is the reality of what is happening in much of the Western world today.
Furthermore, if a minority group begins to feel “persecuted” or “victimised”, this group inevitably becomes more insular, and this can undoubtedly lead to greater radicalisation. Another important truism of human nature and human social group behaviour is that where division exists there is the potential for conflict; and where conflict exists, there is the potential for conflict to amplify.
The key point is that you don’t create unity, trust, or social cohesion in a community by continuing to import unpopular immigrants. And to continue to insist that mainstream Australians must be highly approving of all immigrant types is the epitome of blind dogmatism, not pragmatism.
* Considering the future
It is surely relevant, when considering Australia’s ethno-religious future, to look to Europe, and learn from the mistakes made there. Should the growth of Australia’s Muslim population go unchecked, then what is happening in many European countries now will be like a mirror to Australia’s future.
It’s important to understand a few realities (rather than myths) about multiculturalism. The premise that the experience of one immigrant minority group will be similar to the experience of all others is now being proven a complete fallacy. The notion that second or third generation immigrants will always adapt or assimilate better than first generation is also clearly not true. The Muslim terrorism threat clearly demonstrates this.
Another reality is that assimilation happens much more through necessity than it does through choice. Ethnic nepotism is a natural and profound human tendency. Humans have a natural inclination to associate with and feel a kinship with those most like ourselves. This helps to explain why many concentrated “ethnic ghettoes” have formed in Western cities, and why the “White Flight” phenomenon has often taken hold.
Once concentrated ethnic or religious minority communities establish themselves and reach a critical mass, they become more self-dependent, and there becomes less need for these minorities to associate with the mainstream. Hence, far from multiculturalism creating “social unity” within nations, in reality it creates fragmentation and potentially increased social division. In an age of emphasis on “group identity”, “Multiculturalism” and “victim” culture, this fragmentation becomes potentially more profound.
That said, there’s plenty to indicate that some minority groups assimilate much better than others. But when there are vast social divides with the mainstream in terms of religion, culture, ancestry, language, and values, the potential for division and conflict with the mainstream becomes greater. When minority numbers are low, there is a greater need to associate with the mainstream, but as numbers grow, there becomes less need, and this is crucial.
So, it is very much a number’s game. As with other secular European-based countries, should Australia’s Muslim population reach critical mass, then we may well find ourselves with the vast social divides experienced today by countries like Britain, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands or France.
And this may well mean an increased terrorism threat. And whilst modern counterterrorism measures are making it much more difficult for terrorists to succeed with large-scale attacks like hijacking planes or blowing up iconic buildings, this instead increases the likelihood of “lone wolf” attacks.
In France recently, heavily armed police were filmed patrolling beaches on the French Riviera, as sunbathers bathed. Is this scene we want for Bondi, Maroubra, or Cronulla? Is this what we want for Australia’s future?
Further terrorist attacks will almost certainly result in reactionary calls to curb the civil liberties of Muslims. This will likely only add to a sense of persecution among Muslims. In France recently, some beach town mayors have created a farcical situation by passing laws that allow men to still wear head-covering hooded wetsuits at the beach, but women can no longer wear burkinis, because they’re deemed religious.
Culturally sensitive issues like this highlight the fear and community division that already exists. Reports of vigilante groups forming across Europe in reaction to the terrorism threat and increased sexual attacks on women highlight where the divides could be taking Europe. As governments and security forces attempt to maintain order, inevitably freedoms will be increasingly lost.
A society losing its freedoms, so often becomes a slippery slope. And if freedoms are taken away from Muslims, how long before the rest of us lose more and more of our freedoms?
Like freedom of speech. Alarmingly, Australia’s ACT parliament recently passed “religious vilification” laws, supported by the usual suspects in the Multiculturalism and grievance industries. It was even supported by the Liberal Party in the ACT, clearly demonstrating once again how “illiberal” some Liberals have now become.
In the popular PC dogma, it was once that “discrimination” based on race made you a “victim” — now increasingly, PC values are being extended to religious discrimination (especially if you’re Muslim) making you a “victim” as well. Whilst race and religion are objectively two entirely different things — the desire by Muslims and their supporters to not be perceived as a social “outgroup” sees them desiring the empowering PC “victim” status as well.
And free speech will increasingly be the loser. To the PC dogma, protecting the precious feelings of precious minorities is deemed as far more important than protecting the group interests or traditional freedoms of the majority. This ACT law is another case of where the group interests and values of the majority are being compromised for the sake of favoured minorities.
* Western policies in the Middle East
It seems to be a favourite point of Leftist Muslim apologists to point out that anti-Western sentiment has been growing throughout the Muslim world in the last decade or two, as a reaction to some of the highly flawed Middle Eastern policies practiced by the USA in particular, and frequently supported in turn by Australia and other Western countries.
And this premise undoubtedly has merit. But blame and point-scoring aside, Australia must deal with the here and now, not focus on what policies SHOULD have been employed back in the unchangeable past. But this does raise a very important point. Western governments haven’t always got it right with Middle Eastern policy before, nor in the present, and there’s certainly no guarantee we’ll always get it right in the future. Again, a precautionary approach is best. Just as we have a defence force, and spend billions each year on a defence budget — just in case; so too should we attempt to contain the growth of our Muslim population — just in case. Surely, when national security is at stake, we are better safe than sorry!
* The moral argument
The point is, immigrating to Australia is not a right, it’s a PRIVILEGE — a privilege to be granted entirely at the pleasure of the host people. We can discriminate against anyone we want (individuals or groups) for any reason we want. Being a sovereign nation, we have a right to decide which immigrants we share our country with, and which we exclude. Or, as John Howard once so perfectly put it, “WE decide who comes into Australia, and the circumstances in which they come”. And it’s the NATIONAL INTEREST which should be the litmus test. The ethic is perfectly simple. The utilitarian principle. The greatest good for the greatest number. Exactly what immigration policy, like so many other government policies, SHOULD be about. Keeping culturally incompatible immigrants out of Australia is therefore a perfectly valid, perfectly justifiable moral position.
Bad immigration policies lead to bad social outcomes. If you get immigration wrong, it doesn’t just negatively impact society in the here and now, it will also negatively impact future generations, perhaps even more so. In the cold light of day, it should be very obvious that Muslim immigration represents a substantial net socio-economic COST, and is fraught with profound risks.
By stark contrast, it’s hard to imagine in what ways specifically Muslim immigration actually BENEFITS Australia. And when asked, most Lefties seem to go pretty quiet. Either that, or they pull out standard Multiculturalist propaganda mantras about how “diversity”, “Multiculturalism” or mass immigration as a whole, apparently benefits or “enriches” us. A doctrine taken purely on faith. Diversity for the sake of diversity. Or they may use the same old chestnut false equivalency argument that because SOME immigration from SOME countries may have been SOME use to Australia at SOME point in history, therefore ALL immigration from ALL countries must ALWAYS be good for us at ANY time! Again, a totally incredible, irrational argument.
Or they may say something along the lines of “But Muslims are GOOD PEOPLE!” Well, undoubtedly, this may be very true in many individual cases. But that’s not a rational reason to continue to let in considerable numbers of them as new immigrants every year, at a time of perpetual Muslim terrorism threats, and increased community angst. Simply being a “good person” DOESN’T mean it’s a good idea for Australia to have you as an immigrant. Nor does it mean that Australia owes you anything. The world is undoubtedly full of many millions of “good people” — that surely doesn’t mean we should bring them all into Australia! A sensible immigration policy requires rational thinking, not sentiment.
Actually, since we’re being objective, let’s give the Lefties a little helping hand. Truthfully, granted, in the modern world, there may be some small benefit to Australia in us having our own citizens from backgrounds that understand languages like say, Arabic, Farsi, or Indonesian. This can help with trade deals, national security issues, and better understanding consumer sentiments in export markets overseas.
But the point is, we live in a “smaller” world than we once did, with superior technology and communications, and Australia already has enough people from these backgrounds. And their continued immigration must be weighed up against the obvious socio-economic costs.
Reflecting growing community concern about Islam in Europe, in Australia recently, we’ve seen the growth in a plethora of Islam-wary street movements, such as Reclaim Australia, the United Patriots Front, and the True Blue Crew. These are being countered by dedicated radical Leftists — so-called anti-fascists — hate-filled and often violent — who hold that the end justifies any means, and who hold the further inclusiveness of Muslims into Australia to be automatically good, and their exclusion as automatically bad. Regardless of facts or social outcomes.
A growing Muslim population will likely only see such increasing political polarisation in Australia; between those who see the further inclusiveness of Muslims as being the epitome of virtue, and those who see it as the epitome of stupidity.
As the negative fruits of Muslim immigration come increasingly to bear, and opposition to it publicly and visibly grows, some panicked Multicultural Supremacists/Muslim advocates, with their preciously-held idealism exposed and unravelling before them, will inevitably become more desperate to bully and silence any opposition, and to shoot any messengers.
Hence the venom spewed at Sonia Kruger, the protests outside of Pauline Hanson’s recent ABC appearance, and the death threats made toward Andrew Bolt. Sadly, some people get very narky when asked to face the reality that their precious Multiculturalism Emperor isn’t wearing clothes.
Of course the Multicultural Supremacists are also concerned about stopping the first domino from falling. If we can stop Muslim immigration, the whole absurd dogma of non-discriminatory immigration based on race, culture or religion suddenly comes under threat — a prospect that terrifies Multiculturalists. Heaven help us if Australia begins to realise that not all immigrant types are equally assimilable or equally civilised!
So, in conclusion, stopping Muslim immigration is perfectly sensible, precautionary harm minimisation, and completely in the national interest of Australia. It’s a simple application of a wise old saying — better safe than sorry. And just because it’s “discriminatory” DOESN’T mean it’s WRONG. If only Lefties could get their heads around this fairly simple concept!
Ideally, stopping Muslim immigration would be done quietly, without fuss or fanfare. We should also extend voluntary re-settlement packages currently being offered to asylum seekers to the broader Muslim community living in Australia.
 “WA police to carry firearms at Anzac Day events for first time”, ABC News, 24 April 2015
 “Malcolm Turnbull says terrorism will force changes to big gatherings in public spaces”, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 July 2016(Tom McIlroy)
 “Fact file: Five facts about terrorism in Australia”, ABC News, 25 February 2015
 “Large-scale terror attack in Australia: it’s a case of when”, Daily Telegraph, 2 August 2016 (Caroline Marcus)
 “Anzac Day terror plot: Melbourne teen Sevdet Besim pleads guilty to planning act of terrorism”, ABC News, 30 Jun 2016 (Sarah Farnsworth)
 “Anzac Day terror plot: Teen, 16, failed deradicalisation program”, News.com.au, 26 April 2016 (Debra Killalea)
 “War on terror costs us $20 billion”, The Age, 25 November 2006, Brendan Nicholson
 “Budget 2015: Additional $450m to be spent fighting terrorist propaganda, bolstering intelligence agencies”, 12 May 2015 (James Glenday and Tom Iggulden)
 “Our privacy is about to be serially infringed”, ABC News, 20 March 2015 (Michael Bradley)
 “Senate passes controversial metadata laws”, Sydney Morning Herald, 27 March 2015 (Elise Scott)
 “NSW terror laws to allow police to question, detain suspects for 14 days without charge”, ABC News, 4 May 2016 (Lucy Marks, Raveen Hunjan and Sarah Gerathy)
 “NSW terror laws ‘recipe for police abuse’”, News.com.au, 4 May 2016 (Stefanie Menezes)
 “A Human Rights Guide To Australia’s Counter-Terrorism Laws”, Australian Human Rights Commission, 2008
 “Facial recognition: Privacy advocates raise concern over ‘creepy’ system Government says will enhance national security”, ABC News, 24 February 2016 (Margot O’Neill and Amy Sherden)
 “Pauline Hanson calls for Muslim immigration ban in maiden speech to Senate”, ABC News, 14 September 2016 (Jane Norman)
 “A General Social Impact Assessment of Mosques in Australian Neighbourhoods”, Social Technologies, 26 June 2016
 “Number of unemployed Muslims more than twice national average”, Herald Sun, 10 July 2014 (John Masanauskas)
 “Statistics lay bare stark economic and social disparities for Muslims”, The Australian, 23 May 2015 (Shane Rodgers)
 “Australian Muslim Leaders Warn Of Radicalisation Due To Unemployment; At-Risk Youth May Join ISIS For ‘Good Money’”, International Business Times, 6 February 2015 (Reissa Su)
 “Cost of crime to Australia put at $36 billion a year”, SBS, 19 December 2015
 “Crime families in bloody battle over Sydney drugs trade”, The Australian, 28 May 2016 (John Lyons)
 “2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests”, Wikipedia
 “As it happened: Violence erupts in Sydney over anti-Islam film”, ABC News, 16 September 2012
 “‘This is a warning’: Members of Sydney’s Shia community fear IS beheading”, SBS, 3 November 2014
 “Islam Is a Religion of Violence”, United States Institute of Peace, 9 November 2015 (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)
 “Spread of Islam”, Wikipedia
 “Lecture 6: Europe in the Age of Religious Wars, 1560-1715”, The History Guide, Steven Kreis, 2002
 “Why Islam Needs a Reformation”, The Wall Street Journal, 20 March 2015 (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)
 “From Syria to Iraq, Kenya to Malaysia: How new era of Islamic fundamentalism is spreading fear and chaos around the world”, Daily Mail (UK), 26 June 2014 (Simon Tomlinson)
 “Ripe to be radicalised”, The Spectator, 14 May 2016, Tanveer Ahmed
 “5 facts about the Muslim population in Europe”, Pew Research Center, 19 July 2016 (Conrad Hackett)
 “One in two Australians want a ban on Muslim immigration, poll finds”, TripleJ (ABC), 21 September 2016 (Shalailah Medhora)
 “ Study: Some immigrants assimilate faster”, USA Today, 13 May 2008 (Haya El Nasser)
 “The Myth Of Integration: Muslims In Europe Getting More Radical With Time, Not Less”, Breitbart, 15 October 2015 (Oliver J. J. Lane)
 “Why People Favor Their Own Ethnic Group”, Popular Social Science, 9 November 2012 (Joachim Vogt Isaksen)
 “Risk of ‘lone wolf’ terror attacks increasing – EU police agency”, RT, 20 July 2016
 “Risk of ‘lone wolf’ terror attacks increasing – EU police agency”, RT, 20 July 2016
 “French police make woman remove clothing on Nice beach following burkini ban”, The Guardian, 24 August 2016 (Ben Quinn)
 “ACT parliament passes religious vilification laws”, The Canberra Times, 4 August 2016 (Kirsten Lawson)
 “Pacific Solution”, Wikipedia
 “Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number”, Probe Ministries, 27 May 2004 (Kerby Anderson)