Media Release
Draconian Laws Deliver Injustice and Put Islam on Trial

Three Muslims from Melbourne were convicted in Victoria's Supreme Court on Friday, 16 December 2011, of conspiring to plan a terrorist attack. Wissam Fattal, Saney Edow Aweys, and Nayef El Sayed were sentenced to 18 years jail. Justice Betty King emphasised in her sentencing remarks the "extremist views" of the accused whilst admitting the "amateurish" nature of their alleged plans. 

Hizb ut Tahrir/ Australia emphasises the following points in this regard: 

1.       This is a McCarthist conviction, no less. The accused have not been found guilty of committing any particular act, or even preparing for the commission of any particular act. Rather they have been found guilty of ‘extremist beliefs' - a new offence in the secular democracies of the West - and, based on circumstantial evidence, of conspiring to plan an act, that is, having the mere intention to plan an act - an act which, by the admission of the court, they had no proper ability to carry out. The ludicrous nature of such a conviction is self-evident. 

2.       The preposterous nature of the sentence is also manifest when considering that on the same day another Melbourne man, convicted in a Victorian county court for eight-seven counts of sexual abuse related to fifty-five underage girls, including rape - actual acts committed, not mere plans or intentions - was given a lower sentence. 

3.       Such convictions have only become possible courtesy of the exceptionally low legal standards delivered by the draconian and unjust anti-terror laws. Standards that have done away with the requirement of a guilty act as well as a guilty mind. Standards that have done away with the need for solid evidence and ability to carry out a particular crime. Standards that suffice with mere ‘evil intentions' and bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence used to prove mere intent to plan some undefined act at some undefined point in the future, with or without actually ability on part of the accused to carry it out. 

4.       The anti-terror laws have sought to criminalise ideas and to put Islam itself on trial. We have seen in this case and others before it the absurdity of Australian juries and judges passing judgment on what is and isn't legitimate Islamic thought and ideas. We have seen words as imprecise and subjective as ‘extreme' being used in a court of law to convict people. ‘Extreme' according to whom or what? ‘Extreme' as judged by what criteria?

 5.       The root cause of ‘terrorism' is the brutal Western foreign policy imposed on the Muslim World, which continues unabated, and to which the Australia Government is a willing party. Trying to control reactions to oppression by criminalising ideas and handing out harsh sentences whilst persisting in that oppression is method bound to fail. Justice Betty King chose to turn a blind eye to this as she reminded the accused of the ‘favours' bestowed on them by Australia. Are the bombs and bullets showered on Iraq and Afghanistan part of the gifts of Australia to the Muslims? 

6.       We advise Muslims in Australia not to be caught up in this hysteria and these witch-hunts. The Western standard of proof and justice may have fallen, but the Islamic standard remains firmly in place, inaccessible to the whims of men. No one should be judged by anything less. More importantly, we advise Muslims to continue bravely accounting Western governments on their criminal foreign policy, without being silenced by the cheap tactics of the State, which is precisely what the anti-terror laws seek to do.

Contact: Uthman Badar, Media Representative, on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 0438 000 465.