Fear of Islam has been present in the Western world for centuries. Perhaps the earliest example of this can bee seen in the Crusades in the 11^th Century. However, since the events in New York on September 11 2001 this fear has intensified. In Australia this feeling has been fuelled not only by defining moments like the collapse of the Twin Towers, but also by the actions and reactions of our government and media. With the increase of Muslim migrants and refugees, coupled with incidents like the Children Overboard scandal and the Tampa, Australians have been led to believe that they are the victims. They are the victims of the Muslim ‘Other’ threatening our national security and threatening our national identity. This essay will analyse the factors that made this fear a pivotal part of Australian thinking.

From 1996-2007 the conservative Liberal-National coalition was the government in Australia. During this period, through legislative initiatives and political rhetoric, Muslims and Arabs in Australia became seen as the “dangerous ‘Other’” (Akbarzadeh & Yasmeen 2005 p. 133). The Howard government prided itself on its dedication to national security and so too did the Australian people. Even before the events of September 11 the Australian government’s changing policies towards refugees and asylum seekers were taking shape. This can be seen most clearly in the events of the Tampa incident in late August of 2001: when a small fishing boat carrying 433 mostly Afghan asylum seekers was sinking off the coast of Australia, a Norwegian cargo ship, MV Tampa, rescued those onboard. The Tampa captain, in line with maritime conventions, attempted to take the rescued to Christmas Island, the closest docking point. The Australian government refused the vessel entry to Australian waters. Despite this refusal, the vessel entered Australian waters but was prohibited by the Australian Navy from unloading the passengers at an Australian port. Prime Minister John Howard asserted that the433 Afghans would “never set foot on Australian soil” (quoted in Akbarzadeh & Yasmeen 2005 p. 154), and so the rescued remained in their sea-bound position until New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Nauru agreed to process them.

On August 28 the Herald Sun asked its readers whether they thought the 433 Afghans should be allowed into Australia. Of those polled, 615 thought they should; 13,572 thought they should not (cited in Manne 2005 p. 371). Two weeks later the government implemented the ‘Pacific Solution’: a way to keep all asylum seekers out of Australia by intercepting them at sea and sending them to offshore locations like Nauru and Manus Island. At this time the vast majority of all asylum seekers coming to Australia were Middle-eastern, hence it is obvious to see exactly who this ‘solution’ was directed against.

As if these government decisions weren’t enough to influence public opinion of Muslims, less than six weeks later the events of the Children Overboard scandal occurred. On October 7 2001, four weeks before the federal election, Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock announced on national television that Iraqi asylum seekers, or ‘illegals’ as he had labelled them in display of “verbal master stroke” (MacCallum 2002 p. 78), had “thrown their children into the water, with the intention of putting us under duress” (quoted in Akbarzadeh & Yasmeen 2005 p. 154). Photographic and video evidence was released by the ministry to prove Ruddock’s claims, which the government supported. Shortly after the election, a senate enquiry found that the government and the ministry “had been informed that no such incident took place and that the photographic evidence released was deliberately misleading” (Akbarzadeh & Yasmeen 2005 p. 155).

In a period of less than two months the government had made decisions that would affect non-Muslim Australian community’s view of Muslims. Through denying the Afghans onboard Tampa access to Australia, the public saw them as a border security risk: they were Muslim and they were trying to infiltrate our vast border, for whatever reason. They could easily be judged as sneaky and as criminals by the public. Though the claims of the Children Overboard scandal, the Iraqis onboard could be identified as cruel, selfish and of lacking any of the values Australians hold.

The media is generally known in political terms as being part of the ‘checks and balances’ process; that is, through public scrutiny and questioning, they seek to ensure the government is being honest and doing what is right for the people they govern. However, during the months surrounding the Tampa incident and the Children Overboard scandal the media did very little to critically analyse, or even questions, the government’s actions and intentions. As Sharon Pickering argues, media stereotypes portraying Middle-eastern asylum seekers as a threat to both national security and national identity seek to validate a host of increasingly repressive state responses (Pickering 2000 p.24). in the September 2006 edition of Quadrant an article by John Stone, entitled The Muslim Problem and What to do About It, suggested that Australia’s ‘Judeo-Christian’ culture is incompatible with Muslim culture. Because of this incompatibility Stone argued that all future Muslim immigration must end (Stone 2006). Further to this, in the mainstream media similar sentiments were held. Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun and Janet Albrechtsen at the Australian were just two notable journalists of many whose article portrayed Muslims pejoratively (Manne 2005)

Disdainful dealings towards Muslims at this time resonate like a wall of sound for the Australian public. Through tactful use of situations like 9/11, Tampa and the Children Overboard scandal, the government, in partnership with the Australian media, successfully ignited and fuelled the fears held by non-Muslim Australians of Muslims. They successfully depicted Muslims as immoral, inherently dangerous to our national security and threatening to our national identity.