Internment must be debated

Four years ago I wrote my first article on Islamic immigration.

Essentially, I argued that Islamic immigration was changing the flavour of Australia. As such, it was legitimate for a public debate about this issue.

I was not the first to raise this issue and many more have joined that debate over the last four years. The debate is now one of the most contentious and widely discussed issues in Australian politics.

However, the debate about Islamic immigration focuses entirely on keeping a problem out. It does not deal with the problem within.

And as Manchester showed (once again), the problem within is often known to authorities. But the attacks occur anyway.

As such, we need to debate an answer to this solution: it is internment.

I raised the idea last Friday.

In Saturday’s Weekend Australian it was raised again: this time by Colonel Harry Fullerton OBE. He commanded the Household Cavalry Battle Group in Northern Helmand Province in Afghanistan during 2009/10 – a period of intense conflict.

This is what he had to say:

“We need more laws, resources and powers to deal with the threat of Islamic terrorism: better immigration control, more power and resources for the intelligence services, more control orders, possible intelligent internment and most importantly, a declaration that we are at war with Islamic terrorists, giving us the power to detain indefinitely those who wish us long term harm, and to deal with that threat.”

And the idea was hinted at again by The Australia’s Jennifer Oriel  yesterday:

“Britain has been invaded. Whitehall has revealed that there are 23,000 suspected terrorists inside the UK. What it didn’t say is that the British army reserve has just 29,940 active personnel. The ­implications are clear, but no politician will admit them. When the number of enemies inside a nation nears the number of its active army reserve, the nation cannot hold. Britain and the Commonwealth states should be on a war footing. That means closing borders, strengthening treason laws and bolstering defence…

To counter jihadists’ total war against the West, the government should consider the powers ­created to protect Australia’s freedom during the total wars of the 20th century.

The piecemeal ­approach employed by the West in response to jihad is born of a reluctance to face reality. The laws of peacetime can no longer accommodate the jihadist menace within Western states. When the number of potential enemy combatants inside Britain is only 7000 men short of its army reserve, we must face the reality that the enemy is inside the gate. It is time to state the four words the West hoped never to utter again: we are at war.”

We are at war. And that means dealing with known enemy sympathisers within before they become enemy combatants.

 Most terrorist attacks are carried out by individuals that are already on terrorism watch lists. The government cannot continue to pretend otherwise.

Peace-time policing and the legal system has demonstrated its inability to keep citizens safe.

Internment is not a criminal matter. Rather, it is an issue of security in circumstances of war. It is time it was implemented.

Individuals that are deemed a security threat based on their statements, activities, association and their support for the enemy and its ideology cannot be allowed to continue wandering our streets. They should be interned until the conflict is over.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. I have been saying for 12 months that we are at war with radical Islam. You cannot win a war by burying your head in the sand and hoping it will go away.
    In WWII people who were suspected of having sympathy with the enemy were interred.
    In my book such people should be interred or sent to some Islamic country of their choosing, never to return to Australia.

    Post a Reply
  2. Only an ignorant fool would disagree with this proposal. Enemy sympathizers must be segregated from the main population.

    Post a Reply
  3. Bernard, it’s you who is a threat to Western civilisation mate. You don’t believe in habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial. I don’t think you should be interned though. It would be a waste of resources …

    Post a Reply
    • Filipe, you don’t have a clue about what’s at stake.

      Islam doesn’t have a habeas corpus.

      Post a Reply
  4. This is the first time I have read anywhere a Statement of Fact that fairly describes our situation here in Australia. So disgusted with our week kneed politicians. Sailing us all down the proverbial. Tolerance!!! Bulldusy. One-sided idiocy.

    Post a Reply
  5. Bernard, you are right. During the second world war, I remember the internees were sent to work on the local farms. They were internal enemies who posed a security risk. Nothing is different. We have many internal enemies so the same solutions should apply. In agree, more people are expressing the need to interneese enemies. We are definitely at war.

    Post a Reply
  6. Well said Berard. I completely agree. This is the kind of discussion we really need to have. We did not want war, but they are at war with us, so internment is justified and appropriate, along with stopping Islamic immigration. It is much better to be safe than sorry. Here’s another idea: it may be cheaper to offer those in Austrlalia who are clinging to Islam one way tickets out of the country (without box cutters).

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest