Australia Moves to Ban Nazi Ideology Following Jihadist Massacre at Bondi Beach

Image: Jihad Watch

NSW Premier Chris Minns is under mounting criticism for failing to explicitly address radical Islamic extremism in a sweeping package of laws proposed in the aftermath of the Bondi massacre. While the government has moved swiftly to recall the state parliament for special sittings on Monday and Tuesday, critics argue that the legislative response appears selective and politically cautious.

During the emergency session, Mr Minns is expected to introduce a series of far-reaching measures, including tougher gun control reforms, protest bans that could last up to three months without judicial oversight, expanded police powers to remove face coverings, and the prohibition of so-called “hateful symbols” and chants such as “globalise the Intifada.” Central to the controversy, however, is the government’s decision to include a ban on Nazi ideology while making no explicit provision to outlaw radical Islamic extremism.

Independent NSW MP Mark Latham, a former federal Labor leader, questioned this omission in a post on X, asking why legislation targeting Nazi ideology was being prioritised while the ISIS-inspired ideology linked to the Bondi attackers was not addressed. He accused the government of sidestepping the core issue behind the attack.

According to Mr Latham, the Minns Government has failed to act against what he described as the real drivers of jihadist violence. He argued that the proposed legislation does nothing to prohibit radical Islamic extremism that promotes terrorism, curb the influence of Islamic hate preachers who radicalise young people, or confront ideological practices that distort Islam into a doctrine of violence, hatred, and martyrdom. In his view, expressions of sympathy from the Labor government ring hollow without concrete action against the ideology that inspired the attack.

In a separate post, Mr Latham went further, claiming that the Terrorism Bill before the NSW Parliament bears little relevance to the actual circumstances of the Bondi shooting, allegedly carried out by ISIS-inspired jihadists. He accused the government of exploiting the tragedy as an opportunity to push through a broader set of unrelated and authoritarian measures, rather than directly confronting the threat of Islamist terrorism.

Public reaction on social media echoed these sentiments, with several commenters accusing Labor of targeting ideologies that pose little immediate threat while avoiding what they see as a far more serious and persistent problem. One commenter suggested that it is politically easier for the government to address neo-Nazism than to confront violent Islamic extremism, which they claimed Labor has historically been reluctant to challenge. Others accused the government of pandering to electoral considerations in Western Sydney, arguing that political self-preservation has taken precedence over national security.

The criticism has not been limited to the state level. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also faced backlash last week after announcing new federal legislation aimed at combating “hate speech” and racism, alongside a national gun buyback scheme in response to the Bondi attack. Critics noted that while the Prime Minister repeatedly referenced neo-Nazis, he avoided using the term “radical Islam,” a choice that many saw as emblematic of a broader unwillingness to directly name and confront Islamist extremism.

Together, these developments have intensified the debate over whether Australia’s political leadership is prepared to address all forms of extremism equally—or whether ideological and electoral sensitivities are shaping the response to one of the country’s most serious terror-related tragedies.

(This Article was originally published by Jihad Watch)