Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273575879

Avoidingcommunitybacklashinthefightagainstterrorism:Researchreport

TECHNICALREPORT·MARCH2015

CITATION

1

READS

410

3AUTHORS:

KristinaMurphy

GriffithUniversity

71PUBLICATIONS978CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AdrianCherney

UniversityofQueensland

74PUBLICATIONS251CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

JulieBarkworth

GriffithUniversity

3PUBLICATIONS8CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:AdrianCherney

Retrievedon:12October2015

  1

Avoiding community backlash in the fight against terrorism: Research report

This research was funded by the Australian Research Council

(Grant No. DP130100392)

March 2015 Kristina Murphy1 School of Criminology & Criminal Justice Griffith University Adrian Cherney2 School of Social Sciences The University of Queensland Julie Barkworth School of Criminology & Criminal Justice Griffith University Acknowledgements: this research would have not been possible without the assistance provided by a number people. We would like to thank the survey and focus group participants for finding the time to participate, the Muslim fieldwork managers and moderators Nada and Khadar, the research company Specialised Research and Strategy and in particular Rick Yamine, Associate Professor Mohamed Abdalla and also a number of other individuals who wish to remain anonymous.

                                                                                                               1 Email address: t.murphy@griffith.edu.au 2 Email address: a.cherney@uq.edu.au

  2

1: INTRODUCTION  ..........................................................................................................  3  1.1:  BACKGROUND  ...........................................................................................................................  3  1.2:  PROCEDURAL  JUSTICE  AND  COOPERATION  WITH  POLICE  .................................  5  

2:  MUSLIM  COMMUNITY  FOCUS  GROUPS  ...................................................................  7  2.1:  FOCUS  GROUP  PROCEDURE  ................................................................................................  7  2.2:  REPRESENTATIVENESS  OF  THE  FOCUS  GROUPS  .....................................................  9  

3:  KEY  FOCUS  GROUP  RESULTS  ..................................................................................  11  3.1:  A  SENSE  OF  BEING  UNDER  SIEGE  AND  THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  GROUP  ATTRIBUTION  ..................................................................................................................................  11  3.2:  MEDIA  REPORTING  ...............................................................................................................  14  3.3:  BEING  TOLD  HOW  TO  PRACTICE  ISLAM  AND  FREEDOM  OF  EXPRESSION  16  3.5:  ATTITUDES  TOWARDS  TERRORISM  AND  THE  WAR  ON  TERROR  ..................  18  3.6:  POLICING  OF  MUSLIMS  .......................................................................................................  20  3.7:  ATTITUDES  TOWARDS  AND  SUPPORT  FOR  DOMESTIC  COUNTER-­‐TERRORISM  EFFORTS  ..................................................................................................................  22  3.8:  SUMMING  UP  ............................................................................................................................  25  

4:  MUSLIM  COMMUNITY  SURVEY  ..............................................................................  26  4.1.  SURVEY  PROCEDURE  ............................................................................................................  26  4.2:  CALL  OUTCOMES  AND  SURVEY  RESPONSE  RATE  ..................................................  29  4.3:  SAMPLE  REPRESENTATIVENESS  ...................................................................................  30  4.4:  ITEM  NON-­‐RESPONSE  ..........................................................................................................  32  

5:  SELECTED  SURVEY  FINDINGS  ................................................................................  33  5.1:  PARTICIPANT  BACKGROUND  ...........................................................................................  33  5.2:  MUSLIMS’  PLACE  IN  AUSTRALIAN  SOCIETY  .............................................................  34  5.3:  POLICING  ...................................................................................................................................  36  5.4:  POLICING  OF  TERRORISM  ..................................................................................................  41  5.5:  BI-­‐VARIATE  RELATIONSHIPS  BETWEEN  KEY  VARIABLES  ................................  46  5.6:  ARE  THERE  DIFFERENCES  IN  VIEWS  ACROSS  THE  THREE  STATES?  ...........  48  

6:  SURVEY  SCALES  ..........................................................................................................  50  6.1:  MUSLIMS’  PLACE  IN  AUSTRALIAN  SOCIETY  .............................................................  50  6.2:  POLICING  ...................................................................................................................................  51  6.3:  POLICING  OF  TERRORISM  ..................................................................................................  54  6.4:  DESCRIPTION  OF  CODEBOOK  ..........................................................................................  57  

REFERENCES  .....................................................................................................................  58  

APPENDIX  1  ......................................................................................................................  63  APPENDIX  2  ......................................................................................................................  66      

  3

1: INTRODUCTION While terrorism in different forms has always presented a threat to state security, scholars and policy-makers have argued that since 9/11, states face new forms of terrorism that are mainly motivated by religious extremism, with ‘Islamic fanaticism’ seen as a major threat (Howard & Sawyer 2004; Jackson 2007). One of the unfortunate consequences of the global “war on terror” is that Muslims in Western countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, have become a stigmatised minority and defined as a potential threat to state security due their religious affiliation with Islamic radicalisation or terrorist groups (Peek 2011; Pickering, McCulloch & Wright-Neville 2008; Kundani 2014; Sentas 2014). Scholars and Muslim community groups argue that Muslims have been labelled a suspect community (Sentas 2014; Breen-Smyth 2014; Weine 2015). This has generated not only a sense of being under siege, but also Muslim hostility towards counter-terrorism policing and laws (Peek 2011; Pickering, McCulloch & Wright-Neville 2008; Kundani 2014). The consequence is that this can engender a general unwillingness to cooperate with authorities in efforts to address terrorism and radicalisation (Cherney & Murphy 2013; Lambert 2011; Spalek 2013; Weine 2015). Given the potential of counter-terrorism policies to generate hostility and resistance among groups who feel unfairly targeted by these strategies, this project aimed to:

1. Gauge the perceptions among Muslims in Australia about the fairness of counter-terrorism policing and laws.

2. Identify how community cooperation in counter-terrorism and the prevention of violent extremism can be enhanced.

3. Identify how community backlash against counter-terrorism can be avoided. This project involved two phases of data collection:

1. 14 focus groups: 104 Muslim participants, comprising three groups; youth, middle aged, new arrivals to Australia, living in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne; Focus groups were conducted in 2013 and 2014.

2. Face-to-face survey of Muslims: sample of 800 in total, living in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Survey was conducted in 2014.

1.1: BACKGROUND Avoiding community backlash in the fight against terrorism is essential. This is because community cooperation is central to mitigating the risks of terrorism (Innes 2006; Pickering, McCulloch & Wright-Neville 2008; Ramirez et al 2013; Spalek 2013; Thacher 2005). The Australian government counter terrorism white paper recognises that the community are a “critical partner in protecting Australia from terrorism, and a valuable source of information regarding terrorist-related activity” (DPMC 2010). Events overseas also highlight that an active citizenry is central to preventing terrorist attacks. For example, the reporting by street vendors of the Times Squares car bomb in 2010 thwarted a potential terrorist attack. Further, a number of individuals convicted of terrorism in Australia and abroad had significant community attachments to friends, family and significant others (Porter & Kebbell 2010; Ramirez et al 2013). These attachments and potential informants form a crucial bridge between would-be terrorists and authorities responsible for detecting and preventing terrorist acts. These examples highlight that enhanced law enforcement and surveillance can be limited when it comes to the fight against terrorism.

  4

Laws have recently been expanded as a result of counter-terrorism efforts and there have been significant changes to the powers of police and security agencies to deal with terrorism in both Australia and other western jurisdictions. Key pieces of legislation have expanded the power of state and federal police to detain people for longer periods without charge, to seize their passports, to impose control orders more generally, and they have allowed police and security agencies to intercept and collect people’s personal information (e.g., the USA Patriot Act; the UK Terrorism Act 2000; the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 and Criminal Code Amendment Act 2002 2003; Counter-terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014). The main problem with such changes in legislation, however, is that intrusive tactics such as these can create community backlash against counter-terrorism laws and against the police who are responsible for enforcing many of these laws (Argomaniz & Vidal-Diez 2015; Blackwood, Hopkins & Reicher 2013b; LaFree, Dugan, & Korte 2009; McDonald 2011). Such counter-productive effects of counter-terrorism have been recognised by police themselves. The UK Police Improvement Agency, for example, has stated that the police have to be mindful of the negative “fallout of terrorist cases on local communities” (Neyroud 2007). The Australian government’s review of its own counter-terrorism legislation also recognised that it has the potential to cause “negative effects upon minority communities” (Security Legislation Review Committee 2006, p. 142). Scholars have also argued that counter-terrorism laws have fundamentally changed public conceptions of civil liberties given they require people to accept the expansion of police powers and potential intrusions in the name of pre-empting terrorism (Pickering & McCullock 2010). Research by LaFree et al. (2009) and Byman (2011) suggest that counter-terrorism measures can have counter-productive outcomes, such as stimulating terrorist recruiting, creating sympathy for terrorist ideology, and can lead to estrangement by targeted communities. This can prompt law-abiding individuals to withhold cooperation for fear that if suspicious behaviour is reported to the police it will lead to increased surveillance and the unjust treatment of innocent community members (LaFree et al 2009; Tyler 2012). The potential fall out is that counter-terrorism can create a sense of injustice, alienation and disengagement from mainstream culture and society by groups who feel unfairly singled out by counter-terrorism policing and laws (Blackwood, Hopkins & Reicher 2013b). One of our aims in this research is to understand the position that Muslims in Australia take when it comes to supporting counter-terrorism measures and how the war on terror has impacted on their sense of identity, given this will have some bearing of their attitudes and support for efforts to address terrorism and radicalisation. Examining the effects of counter-terrorism measures on cooperation with police among Muslim communities is an issue of national and international significance. For many in these groups, counter-terrorism laws are seen to be used against them disproportionately (ABC 2014; McDonald 2011; Spalek 2011). As such, Muslims’ experiences of counter-terrorism laws and policies will be very different compared to the general population. Given the negative consequences that intrusive counter-terrorism strategies and laws can have on Muslim communities in particular, the perceived legitimacy and procedural fairness of counter terrorism policing may be essential to its effectiveness.

  5

1.2: PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND COOPERATION WITH POLICE With members of the Muslim community being so important in the collaborative fight against Militant Islamists and radicalisation, understanding how people react to authorities in this area is important. It is also extremely important to identify strategies that authorities can use to foster Muslim’s trust and their willingness to engage and work with police and legal authorities to combat terrorism. It is within this space that our interest in procedural justice policing comes in. Procedural justice (also known as procedural fairness) refers to the perceived fairness of decision-making and the perceived treatment one receives from a decision-maker. The fairness of police procedures, for example, depends on the manner by which police interactions with the public are conducted; (a) whether the police are neutral and transparent when applying legal rules and when making decisions, (b) whether they explain their actions and seek input from community members before making decisions, (c) whether they communicate they have citizens’ best interests at heart, and (d) whether they treat people with dignity and respect. These four dimensions are key predictors of people’s acceptance of police decision-making and the laws they enforce. They have also been shown to be critical for promoting people’s cooperation with police (Tyler, 2006). In the policing context, use of procedural justice by police has been shown to improve the public’s trust in police, as well as public cooperation with the police (Cherney & Murphy 2013; Murphy, Hinds & Fleming 2008; Murphy, Mazerolle & Bennett 2014; Sunshine & Tyler 2003). Tyler (2012) has recently argued that procedural justice is relevant to the effectiveness of counter-terrorism measures because it impacts on whether those measures are seen as legitimate and desirable. Research conducted by Tyler does support the conclusion that procedural justice matters when it comes to counter-terrorism policing. Tyler and colleagues found that among their sample of Muslims residing in the UK and US, procedural justice was the most significant predictor of people’s willingness to cooperate with the police in counter-terrorism; it played a prominent role in encouraging Muslims’ willingness to alert police to terrorist related activities or potential terrorists threats (Huq, Tyler & Schulhofer 2011a, 2011b; Tyler, Schulhofer & Huq 2010). It was more significant than judgments about the severity of terrorist threats, and was neither influenced by ideological or religious beliefs (eg. attitudes on foreign policy issues, such the use of military force in Afghanistan or invasion of Iraq, or religious commitment). However, some empirical work suggests that procedural justice can sometimes matter little to people’s decision to cooperate and engage with police; especially so when those people feel marginalised and disengaged from society (see Murphy & Cherney 2011, 2012; Sargeant, Murphy & Cherney 2014). This raises doubt as to whether procedural justice on its own can encourage support for the police and enhance public cooperation in the context of counter-terrorism (Cherney & Murphy 2011). As noted earlier specific minority groups have been a key focus of counter-terrorism policing because of their religious (e.g., Muslim) or ethnic affiliation (e.g., Middle Eastern or Pakistani). Among such populations there may be wide support for the police as a legitimate institution, but counter-terrorism laws may be viewed as unjust because

  6

these groups feel the laws are used against them unfairly (Cherney & Murphy 2013; Pickering, McCulloch & Wright-Neville 2008; Sun et al 2011). These views can spark negative sentiment and disengagement from key institutions of social control, which can undermine a willingness to cooperate with the police. It can also encourage opposition towards the laws the police enforce. It is unknown whether in such a context procedural justice – despite all its promise – can reverse such feelings. There is little empirical data in Australia or internationally that tests whether procedural justice policing can counter the potential negative perceptions, sense of being under siege, and the resulting backlash against counter-terrorism policing and laws. Our research addresses this gap in the literature. Specifically, our study aims to examine the impact of counter-terrorism policing and laws on Muslim communities in Australia. To address our aims we collected data directly from Muslim communities living in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. Focus groups and face-to-face surveys were conducted in 2013 and 2014. The following sections describe our data collection methods and our main findings from the research.

  7

2: MUSLIM COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUPS The first phase of data collection for this research involved the collection of qualitative data via focus group discussions. The aims of the focus groups were three fold. One was to help inform the design of the face-to-face survey (see Chapter 4). Second, qualitative data was collected in order to help contextualize the survey results and assist in the interpretation of the quantitative survey data. Third, focus groups were deemed important in helping to understand how perceptions are shaped not only by individual opinion or experience (e.g. direct contact with police or security agencies relating to counter-terrorism) but also group experience that is influenced by stories and opinions relayed between social groups. Focus group interviews were identified as important in helping to capture this vicarious experience. The principal investigators for the Muslim community focus groups were Dr Adrian Cherney and Associate Professor Kristina Murphy. 2.1: FOCUS GROUP PROCEDURE A total of 14 focus groups were conducted across Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne between October 2013 and September 2014. Similar to the recruitment of the survey data (see Chapter 4) the cities of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne were chosen as the sites for the focus groups given the majority of Australia’s Muslims live in the states where these cities are located (i.e., 6.0% for Queensland, 49.6% for NSW and 32.1% for Victoria), with the highest density of these communities living in each of the three selected cities. Recruitment of focus group participants occurred in two phases. The company Specialised Research and Strategy – an organisation specialising in conducting research in culturally and linguistically diverse communities, conducted nine focus groups. Specialised had extensive experience in undertaking research involving Muslim communities and employed Muslims to act as focus group moderators. The use of Muslim moderators to conduct these focus groups was done to ensure there was congruence between participants and interviewers, which can help in facilitating discussion on controversial topics (Peek & Fothergill 2009). Each moderator was trained in the aims of the project and in the use of the focus group schedule. They were trained on which questions would likely require additional probing. The Principal Researchers also received regular updates about how the focus groups were progressing. This provided opportunity to identify salient issues in need of follow-up in forthcoming focus groups. Recruitment in this first phase occurred through Mosques and established contacts the moderators had with community leaders and Muslim community groups in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. The moderators reported a high level of initial reluctance among potential participants; many were suspicious of the “hidden agenda” behind the research, concerned it was part of an intelligence gathering exercise. Hence, a significant amount of work was undertaken to allay any fears among Muslim leaders and community groups to gain the trust of participants about the intention of the research. Focus groups occurred at community centres or local Mosques. Muslims of Lebanese, Pakistani and Indonesian background were recruited. These three groups were selected because they provided the best spread of Muslim communities in Australia, with Lebanese the largest and most visible Islamic group in

  8

Australia, followed by Indonesian. Pakistanis are the fourth largest Muslim group in Australia (ABS 2012). This enabled Specialise to target the recruitment process. These focus groups were divided along three main characteristics – ‘youth’ (18-26 years of age), ‘new arrivals’ to Australia (18+ years of age), and ‘middle-aged’ participants (35-50 years of age). See Table 2.1 for the composition of the focus groups. Dr Adrian Cherney also undertook a second phase of data collection that involved conducting five additional focus groups in Brisbane. Muslims in these focus groups came from a variety of countries. These were facilitated through contacts established with Muslim leaders and community representatives. Again, a large amount of work was conducted to facilitate participation and gain trust of participants, given suspicions about the intentions of the research. Often trusted community leaders and individuals acted as intermediaries to vouch for Dr Cherney and to assure participants the research had no hidden agenda. This is not an unusual situation when it comes to accessing hard to reach minority groups for research purposes (Emmel et al 2007). These focus groups were conducted at local Mosques, community centres and in two cases at a local cafe and Kebab shop. Participants of varying ages, gender and denominations were recruited in phase two. See Table 2.1 for the composition of these focus groups. Table 2.1: Focus group composition and location

Focus group composition and participant numbers Location

Group 1 - 4 males; 6 females (Lebanese - Youth) Sydney

Group 2 - 8 males (Pakistani - New Arrivals) Sydney

Group 3 - 7 males & 3 female (Pakistani - Youth) Melbourne

Group 4 - 7 males & 3 females (Lebanese New - Arrivals) Melbourne

Group 5 - 7 males & 1 female (Indonesian - Youth) Sydney

Group 6 - 5 males & 5 females (Indonesian - Middle Age) Brisbane

Group 7 - 6 males & 4 females (Lebanese - Middle Age) Brisbane

Group 8 - 6 males & 4 females (Indonesian - Youth) Melbourne

Group 9 - 5 male & 5 females (Pakistani - Middle Age) Brisbane

Group 10 - 3 females (Lebanese; Iraq - Youth) Brisbane

Group 11 - 4 males (Syrian; Kurdistan, - Middle Age, Youth) Brisbane Group 12 - 3 males (Indonesian; South Africa, Saudi Arabia - Youth). Brisbane

Group 13 - 3 females (South African - Youth) Brisbane

Group 14 - 5 males (South African, Zimbabwe - Youth) Brisbane In total, therefore, 14 focus groups were conducted and comprised a total of 104 participants (37 females; 67 males). Participants were all 18 years and older. All

  9

participants were given a department store gift voucher to thank them for their time. However, some participants declined to take the voucher. Groups were in some cases split along gender lines. In situations where focus groups involved both men and women efforts were made to ensure female participants voiced their opinions. The discussion groups were recorded and then transcribed verbatim, with transcripts cross-checked for accuracy. The interview transcripts were coded in NVivo 10. A first stage of open coding was adopted in which chunks of interview data was allocated to broad concepts, examples include “Muslim identity”, “Muslims are misunderstood”, “the role of the media”, “terrorism and Islam”, “being under siege”, “defending Islam”, ‘police contact”, and “support for counter-terrorism policies and laws”. A total of 67 broad concepts were coded. Data that was allocated to these concepts was then broken further down to represent the subcategories or dimensional properties of a particular concept. For example, the concept “support for counter-terrorism” was divided into positive support or rejection of different strategies and reasons for these judgements. This follows a similar method advocated by Glaser and Strauss (1990) that is referred to as axial coding. Given that segments of interview data often reflected multiple themes, with the narratives of participants more often than not coded to more than one analytical topic, the level of co-occurrence between coded themes was also examined so as to provide insight into the interrelationships across core concepts. 2.2: REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE FOCUS GROUPS One needs to be mindful that there are some limitations with the focus group design and sample. It needs to be recognised that Muslims are not a homogenous group, with Muslim communities characterised by different ethnicities and denominations (e.g., Shia and Sunni), who do not necessarily speak with a unified voice. Hence, results reported here might not necessarily be representative of the Muslim community in Australia. It also needs to be kept in mind that results provide insight into collective perspectives that represent subjective assessments. With any research of this kind there is the problem of respondent bias – with interviewees not divulging information about certain topics. Also the sample was heavily drawn from Brisbane, hence potentially biasing the results given that Muslims in Brisbane may have different experiences compared to Muslims living in Sydney or Melbourne. We have not attempted here to disaggregate the focus group data based on the three cities in which they occurred, because our aim was to identify consistent reoccurring themes across the focus groups, than detect idiosyncrasies between groups so as to outline variations across jurisdictions. This provided the opportunity to trace similar patters across multiple cases, helping to identify generalisable results (George & Bennett 2005). Another factor that should be taken into account and that could have a bearing on the results is the timing of the focus groups. For instance, the focus groups were completed in early September 2014, before the arrests in Sydney of Australian Muslims allegedly acting in support of the Islamic State that was reported to involve 800 police, the arrest of Muslims in Brisbane for supporting extremists groups in Syria, government proposals to expand counter-terrorism laws, and reports in the media that Muslims were being subject to increased anti-Muslim attacks including

  10

physical and verbal assaults, threats of violence against senior clerics and damage to mosques (Aston 2014; ABC 2014a, 2014b). If the focus groups had been conducted following this period results may have been different given the intensity of fear and community concern that Muslims voiced during this time (ABC 2014a). The qualitative data represented in the next chapter presents active attempts by Muslims to make sense of their place in society and a feeling that their community is under siege. They are accounts that are representative of group level experiences and reflect the ways in which the war on terror and resulting counter-terrorism responses are interpreted by Muslims. This will in turn influence their decisions and actions about whether they support, resist or reject government and police efforts to tackle terrorism or radicalisation.

  11

3: KEY FOCUS GROUP RESULTS  In this section we provide an overview of key results arising from the focus group discussions. We have not reported all the results here and have been selective to minimize the length of this section. Further results will be published in due course (e.g., see Cherney & Murphy 2015). It also needs to be stated that we did not find major differences across men or women, new arrivals, or young or old respondents that would lead to solid conclusions that particular concerns or experiences are simply confined to one particular group within our sample. Minor variations across youth, compared to older participants were found and we have highlighted these. The quotes provided below are used to illustrate key issues raised; whether males or females, or young or old respondents are cited should not be taken to necessarily mean such perceptions or experiences were only confined to such groups. The focus group interview schedule was divided into a number of sections. Section 1 covered topics related to Muslim identity and being a Muslim in Australia, such as whether respondents thought of themselves firstly as a Muslim or an Australian, the meaning of Islam in their lives, and whether Islam was misunderstood and the source of this misunderstanding. Section 2 canvassed topics related to terrorism, such as whether terrorist groups distort the meaning of Islam. Section 3 then moved onto the fairness of counter-terrorism policing and laws and whether participants felt Muslim communities were being targeted and why, and also canvassed perceptions about police and government engagement of the Muslim community. In Section 4 respondents were asked to judge the fairness and effectiveness of different counter-terrorism approaches. Section 5 canvassed how the Muslim community could better respond to the threat of radicalisation and criticisms over Islamic practices. At the end of the focus group participants were prompted as to whether they wanted to raise any additional issues.  3.1: A SENSE OF BEING UNDER SIEGE AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF GROUP ATTRIBUTION  A key finding that came out of the focus groups was a strong sense among participants that Muslim communities were regarded as “suspect” resulting from the association between Islam and terrorism. Participants spoke about a sense of being “under constant suspicion” and stated that their community had been under suspicion since 9/11 in particular, been stigmatized and labelled as a security threat. One consequence was that participants believed a form of collective attribution was being imposed on Muslim communities (see also Mythen, Walklate & Khan 2013). Specifically, participants felt all Muslims were tarnished as potential terrorists or sympathisers of terrorism:  I think just adding to what she said Islam is a religion and there are people who are supposedly Muslims doing these acts, we need to define, we need to separate Islam and separate it from people because these Al Qaeda and whoever else, they’re the ones who are saying they’re Muslims and doing these acts, but a true Muslim wouldn’t do that and that’s why I think it sounded to me that these events September 11, the London bombings, all the things that are coming…making people think that Muslims all around the world believe in these acts and follow them, we’re all evil, but

  12

in actual fact, doesn’t have to be like that, and these groups and whoever else, all they’re doing is causing us grief (female).  Unfortunately the Mohamed and the Ali’s that live in Australia that couldn’t care less about Al Qaeda, are the ones that have to bear the brunt of the thing [i.e. public and political outcry against terrorism]. Yes, the very concept of jihad is to fight for your belief, but if people actually chose to go deep into the religion and what the concept of jihad means it’s not fighting with the sword, but standing for what you believe in and doing what needs to be done, unfortunately these people who commit these acts by all expression they are terrorists, it doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorist, it just means that these terrorists are Muslim, and I think we are a long way from trying to correct the distorted image (female). It’s upsetting because they tangle us in something that we have nothing to do with, you know being born and brought up here and that’s something that happens overseas [in reference to terrorist attacks such as 9/11, 7/7] that we have nothing to do with, just because we have the same faith although they did this. So it really has nothing to do... it’s upsetting that you have to be judged and being judged based on something that really you don’t even practise or believe in (gender not recorded). Participants spoke about how this atmosphere of community fear and suspicion towards Muslims percolated down to their everyday experiences and day-day interactions: ...when I started taking on the religion and post-9/11 - you know, everyone forgot about the whole immigrants thing and then they started focusing on the whole Islamic thing and Muslim thing. So I got hit again from that side of things. For me anyway, it wasn't easy. It still isn't (male).  Another incident which is also perfect to bring up post 9/11, this was in [year] 11 or 12 in a public school, as the teacher was calling out the roll I had a friend whose name was Osama and at the time things were red hot. So it’s assembly the whole school’s there in the one area, the teacher is screaming out the roll and when it came to the name Osama he said where is that terrorist, and as a Muslim it's not a fun thing to be slapped with that, everyone knows you're a Muslim you might as well just go preach terror (male). Other friends say we are facing such a problem, from police, from normal people, from their neighbours. One of my friends told me his neighbour usually comes to his house to play with his kids. But one day after 9/11, after all these things his Mum [i.e. the neighbour’s mother] tells him don't go there because we have heard Muslims are very extremist and they can harm you. The kid [i.e. the neighbour] he was really friendly and used to come over and he was crying. My friend say what's happening around here and the kid told all the things his Mum said... don't go there, Muslims, they are dangerous (male).  ....because as my name is Mohamed at work and people straight away judge you as a Muslim of course and then they start asking these questions about terrorists, so then I smile at them and I say do you think that I’m going to explode (male).

  13

Such heightened awareness about how Muslims are perceived socially made respondents mindful of how members of the community might react to them, when for instance there was a terrorist attack reported in the media. For example, when talking about how it made them feel when they heard about terrorist attacks, two young females in a focus group responded by saying: Female 1:... We're like, please don't be Muslim, please don't be Muslim...[in reference to when a terrorism attack is reported in the media]. Female 2: It's saddening first of all that innocent people got killed and any loss of any life is sad...Second of all, oh my God, yeah, and it's like, okay, tomorrow's going to be an interesting day at work. I'm just like, please, no customer mention anything. I need to do my work. So it's a little - it happened somewhere else but people will retaliate here. It's a little bit edgy... This atmosphere for female participants in particular generated a heightened fear of being out in public. As one female respondent stated in relation to being in public: I still don’t feel a hundred per cent safe. Female participants also reported incidents of public vilification, some of which occurred in the work place. One young female participant recalled: a couple of weeks ago, I had a customer tell me that he'd rather be served by an Australian. The consequences of the collective experiences cited above is that they can generate a sense of “being under siege”. This sense is characterised by a belief that members of the general population (i.e. non-Muslims), particular institutions (e.g. police and media outlets), and community leaders (e.g. politicians) hold implicit biases about their group (i.e. Muslims) and attribute negative behavioural intentions to them (Bar-Tal and Antebi 1992). In our context, this bias would be that Muslims present a terrorist threat or that Islam promotes violence. This is generated by what Muslims observe in relation to the social and political responses that surround terrorism. This sense of being under siege and attack was expressed in a variety of ways, with some respondents more emotive in their descriptions compared to others: When I hear all of the attacks you just mentioned [in reference to events like 9/11, 7/7, Mumbai] it really makes me angry a lot. Why is the world against us, why are we seen to be the bad people?...God does not accept people blowing themselves up in the name of God. This is the evil that people use Islam to say, that it was done for the sake of Allah. Perhaps have we had the chance to reflect and say for example, why are Muslims being treated like this…Muslims around the world….being subjected to bad treatment from their own leaders. The whole notion is to destroy Islam and its followers. The whole world is against us (female). For some participants it reflected a long history of persecution against Islam and was interpreted as part of a broader effort by governments to suppress Muslims: ...it's the same old story of them just lop siding the news and just singling out the Muslims because you [i.e. western governments] simply don't like them. They [Muslims] are striving hard for a pure way of life and every single prophet that ever came with a message from God the creator and [unclear] of the whole universe and everything in it, every single one of them were - they were given the same hard time that the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi wasallam [peace be upon him], and

  14

we as his followers are getting singled out again. They want an evil society [i.e. western governments] and we are pushing a pure society, and they have to do every single thing in their power to outcast us, to make people think that we're evil and just suppress it, put it [i.e. Muslims] under their thumb (male). The quotes above demonstrate how Muslims perceive, interpret and experience the forms of collective attributions that are imposed on their community both through the narratives that surround terrorism and the policy responses adopted to ensure national security (Blackwood, Hopkins & Reicher S 2013b; Breen-Smyth 2014). The outcome is a sense that their community is under siege. The problem for authorities is how such perceptions influence both Muslim’s sense of belonging in Australia and their support of counter-terrorism policies and laws. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 5, a sense of being under siege has some influence on whether Muslims report they will support police to combat terrorism and whether they believe terrorists have valid grievances. The issue for police is how do they overcome the feeling among Muslims that their community is under siege? As we have argued above and indicate in Chapter 5, the use of procedural justice offers one possible solution.  3.2: MEDIA REPORTING  Mainstream media reporting has a strong effect on how the general public perceives Muslims as a terrorist threat, but it also influences the types of perceptions Muslims have of themselves and whether they believe majority groups see them as valued and respected members of society (Aly 2007; Breen-Smyth 2014; Tahiri and Grossman 2013). In this regard examining how Muslims judge the media in relation to its representation of Muslims and Islamist terrorist attacks is important. When asked whether Muslims and Islam was misunderstood by many Australians, participants in the majority agreed. Responses to this question included: I’ve been in Australia for 2 years, very difficult sometimes because they see you with beard and they think all of a sudden you are very religious and you there’s a stereotype feel about Australia, I live in an area where, it is multicultural, and I see Jews with curls and beards and they don’t get stereotyped, so I am very confused (male) Most definitely, I think for anyone that’s a practising Muslim we take our everyday practises from that, who’s our prophet and he’s very big on adapting to the culture in which you live, in you don’t impose your thoughts on other people, but you show your good character through your example, people will see you in a good light. So while the general perception of Islam particularly in the western world and media it’s very far from the religion itself (female). The source of this misunderstanding was principally seen as being generated through media reporting. For example two males respondents stated: I mean like yesterday the article that was published in the – what was it Sunday Mail – the front page you had a man with an [unclear] and the [unclear] and the beard and they had the line on as Jihad Joe. Something like Brisbane dad from the suburbs goes and fights jihad. So definitely, I mean people read newspapers, people watch the

  15

news, people take an interest in these things and especially when it’s something that’s sensational people get really riled up on it. So it definitely, definitely does have a major role to play. Sometimes you think that the media is trying to push a certain agenda because they’re trying to support the government reforms, or whatever it may be, but I mean it really has a detrimental effect on us (male). I think the media has a big impact on the Muslim community here. Every time we watch media, they associate Islam with the terrorism, they say Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorists. They don’t say Christian terrorists, they don’t say for example like Jewish terrorist, although we have seen lots of Christians they are doing terrorist acts… they want to show that Muslim and Islam is a source of terrorism, so this has a big impact on the way people are thinking. So when they see me dressing like this, they say terrorist and in fact many people they tell me ‘have you got a bomb in your pocket’. When they see women covering their face they think why are they hiding their identity, because they are carrying bombs, they want to go out and do bombing attacks so they cover their identity… it’s not like that and people should understand (male). As intimated in these quotes there was a strong belief across the focus groups that media reporting exacerbated the stigmatisation and negative labelling of the Muslim community. Respondents believed there was a double standard in how terrorism was often reported in the media and its association with Islam. For example when it came to violent acts committed by other groups or individuals, such as Christians, Jews, and Hindus, the label of “terrorist” was rarely applied. In conjunction with this, respondents believed the media spread misinformation about Islamic principles or practices (e.g. Jihad, sharia, halal) or often referred to them with little appreciation of their meaning or purpose and the ways they can be interpreted or applied. This was seen as only further fuelling community misunderstanding and fear of Islam and Muslims. The below are a few examples of these sentiments: Comes back to the media, the media shows how negative Muslims are. Why can’t they see the good side of us. Why is it all about being negative, negative, are we really that bad of a human race that was designed and created to kill people (female). Bad news, is news that makes headlines. Good news never makes headlines. So whatever good the Muslim community do, it doesn't really make the headlines. But anything that they perceive as bad, which is generally being taken out of context, is or misconceived, will be making the headlines (male). I think the media is very hypocritical….You get a guy in Norway [in reference to Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011] who kills so many people and he’s just sick, he’s not – whereas if it was a Muslim guy it would have been he’s a terrorist (male). We had bombs in XXXX [identifying information removed], did anyone know about that? Did you hear about this terrorist movement that’s happening? No, because he wasn’t Muslim (male). I mean because the thing is that whenever something bad happens they use these terms, and these terms are all synonymous or they are terms that come from our

  16

religion, but obviously they’re not used in the right context. People immediately associate those terms with Islam and Muslims. So that obviously then paints everybody with the same brush. It definitely hurts us…(male). Respondents spoke about the types of generalisations that were made in the media about Islam and terrorism, and how it distorted the fact there were many different denominations and “branches” of Islam, all of which did not speak with one unified voice or even interpreted or practiced Islam in the same way. The homogenizing effect of media reporting was seen as making it impossible for Muslims to present alternative views on Islam, terrorism or radicalisation. The outcome though was that no Muslim could escape being collectively defined as a “representative” spokesperson for the community, or represented an “atypical” Muslim: ...you are almost expected to be representing Islam. Every Muslim person in society, almost says oh yeah you represent Islam and even there was an interview on Sunday – Weekend Sunrise – and there was a young Muslim kid there with a Christian Pastor. The young Muslim kid was asked - oh what do you think of the legitimate concerns Australians have about Muslims. I’m like that’s just such an unfair question to ask him. He can’t answer that on behalf of everyone, but unfortunately – so similarly when someone bad goes in the press they’re like oh yeah he’s representing all Muslims (male).  3.3: BEING TOLD HOW TO PRACTICE ISLAM AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION  The terms “moderate” and “extremists” have become an important part of the nomenclature associated with counter-terrorism policy, and public debates on the need for Muslim communities to delineate themselves from those who commit terrorism in the name of Islam (Hopkins and Kahani‐Hopkins 2009; Kundnani 2014). The term moderate Muslim is often use to mean Muslims who are anti-terrorists (whether in the name of Islam or otherwise) and who are opposed to the invocation of Islam in militant political rhetoric (Mohood & Ahmad 2007). The problem though is that when the media, serving governments or police, invoke terms like moderate or modern Muslim, it can leave the impression that Muslims are being told how they should be practicing Islam. For some participants, the invocation of the term moderate Muslim was inaccurate and was actually unhelpful in relation to delineating between Muslims who are deemed socially acceptable (i.e. moderates) compared to those regarded as extreme and therefore posing a threat to the community. Three respondents summed this up as follows: When I hear the word - the term moderate Muslim, it makes me think of a lazy Muslim (male). In the Koran, it talks about [inaudible] so the people of the Middle East and in essence that’s what we strive to be. We don’t strive to go to one extreme or to the other, it’s just the middle path. That’s Islam. It’s not moderation, it’s not being a modern Muslim, that is Islam. So to call us moderate Muslims is a bit of in your face and it’s something that’s not appreciated by the majority of Muslims (male).

  17

I do think it's unhelpful, because I identify as a Muslim. I don't identify as a moderate Muslim. I identify as Muslim, period. I identify as Muslim because I understand that Muslim - sorry, Islam - teaches me peace and it teaches me to be a good person and to conduct my way - myself in a way that is fair to everybody around me, fair to myself. So yeah, it's just - I think it's an unnecessary label, again (female). Respondents overwhelming identified that one of the best things about living in Australia was the fact they had religious freedom, with Muslim participants who were born overseas particularly appreciative of this freedom, given the forms of religious persecution they had observed or even experienced in their country of origin. The three quotes below sum up these perceptions: I have so much freedom and choice to do anything I want with out any person telling what I can or can’t do. People respect me and I respect them. I can go to the Mosque and prey.... This is very good for me and my religion (female). I am proud to be a Muslim in this country because of the freedom it gives you (female). Whether we like it or not, that's a freedom we do have. If we go back to the Middle East, people get persecuted because they pray, or they read the Quran, or because they have a beard. At least we don't have that here. We're quite happy that we can at least pray five times a day, I can go on my lunchtime and break time and I know I can pray (female). However, despite this sense of freedom, respondents stated that they felt they could not openly voice their opinions or beliefs, whether collectively or individually in public. This related specifically to why some Muslims committed terrorists acts or voicing criticism and opposition to counter-terrorism policies and laws out of fear they could be labelled as a radical or an extremist (this has also been noted in the UK and US context; see Breen-Smyth 2014; Mythen 2012; Kundani 2014). For some participants this generated a certain level of defiance towards the authority of governments and the police. For example one male stated: The thing is…if you talk out against these things and you show your view, you're singled out as being an extremist. This shows that the problem that the government and the henchmen like ASIO and the federal police have….their problem is with Islam. It's not with the Muslims. If a Muslim dresses the way that they want you to dress and that you live your life the way that they want you to live your life, they're fine. They don't care if you're Muslim. It's not a problem with Muslims. The problem is with Islam. It is your understanding and your practice and implementation of Islam that they don't like (male). However, for some participants any attempt to voice their opinion about what governments should do to address terrorism was largely pointless because the Muslim community was rarely listened to: ...if you look at Israel and Palestine, especially when the conflict was at its peak in the last month, all over the world, I think everyone expressed their view and basically all that’s happened is it fell on deaf ears and how people have forgotten about it.... Now

  18

all of a sudden the big issue is ISIS and IS. There’s no fear in expressing our viewpoint, but there’s the feeling that when we do it’s sometimes mute because there’s nothing really happening. We can do as much as we want, but as long as our governments refuse to actually listen or take any interest there’s really not much happening (male). Some participants also believed that they were unable to openly discuss principles of faith amongst themselves or with Muslim leaders. For instance, the meaning of jihad3 was seen as having been labelled with inherently negative undertones by the media and politicians, which meant that any discussion about its meaning could raise unwanted attention. Two participants described that any open discussion or debate about jihad carried inherent risks in generating official attention: The risk of the j – bomb… [j meaning jihad]. It's very hard for us even to bring that word up, you know (male). you got to think twice whether you should talk about jihad.... openly, without you thinking I’m now going to be targeted by ASIO or is my phone going to get tapped..... (male). 3.5: ATTITUDES TOWARDS TERRORISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR We asked focus groups participants about their opinion on, and reactions to, particular terrorist groups and events such as 9/11, 7/7, Bali Bombings and other high profile terrorist events. The aim here was to understand how the Muslim community felt about such issues and whether they believed Islamists distort the Islamic religion, and what they saw as motivating their actions. Understanding the level of community sentiment towards terrorists, who call themselves Muslim, and what the broader Muslim community regards as motivating their actions, is relevant to ensuring there is mutual understanding between Muslim communities, the public, police and governments about factors that are seen as linked to the causes and prevention of terrorism and extremism. When it came to canvassing the issue of Islamic inspired terrorism, participants were adamant that terrorists who called themselves Muslims were distorting the meaning of Islam as a religion of peace - as one respondent stated: “They weren’t practicing Muslims” in reference to terrorists who evoke Islam to justify their actions. Other comments included:  These guys [terrorists] are minorities. They don't speak on behalf of one point something billion Muslims around the world. You know what I mean? (male).

                                                                                                               3  Jihad (literally meaning striving or exerting oneself) as outlined in the Koran has a number of dimensions. There is however no universal agreement among Islamic scholars about its meaning. It can refer to a violent or non-violent struggle, with its violent militarised dimension (known as a lesser jihad) typically associated with suicide bombings or terrorist propaganda, while its meaning as a personnel struggle (termed higher jihad) is interpreted as individual Muslims striving spiritually to resist temptations and living a moral and virtuous life (Esposito 2010, 2011).  

  19

“There are a lot of people that are doing these things [in reference to terrorism] are obviously not true Muslim because as earlier we spoke, Islam means peace, so if anybody says that I’m a Muslim and goes to war and does things like that, is really a non believer” (female). ...a person cannot commit suicide and blow themselves up and other innocent people up it’s completely, haram, suicide is haram, and the scholars have absolutely condemned it, so I mean that’s wrong (female).  One question that was posed to participants was “what motivates individuals or groups to commit terrorist acts”. The act of terrorism while condemned, could not in the opinions of participants be divorced from broader events occurring overseas that fuelled resentment and frustration among Muslim populations and thus generated support for terrorism as a justifiable response in the eyes of some Muslims. These events included the Israel and Palestine conflict and the death of Palestinians due to what respondents regarded as Israeli aggression and unwillingness on the part of the international community to sanction Israel. Other motivating factors identified were the death of Muslims in wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and the lack of public and political outcry shown towards Muslim victims of overseas conflicts and government oppression compared to other religious on non-religious groups. The quote below from a young female Muslim, sums up well these sentiments expressed across the focus groups and the level of frustration they evoked:  .....a lot of it is political and it's - you have to - you can't just go from one thing and say, that's why it's started. So you can't just start from September 11 and say, oh, September 11 happened and that's when it started. Yeah, we have to really look back into history and look at the history of occupation and invasion throughout the Middle East, which resulted in September 11. We're not saying it's good or bad, we're just saying, that's the chronicle of events that happened throughout the Middle East until now.....This is how I see it, so I cannot take September 11 as one event and say, this is an event that stands by itself. It's like saying that - I was speaking to my husband about it the other day, it's like - it's really interesting how since September 11 happened till now, every year it's always - people remember it and they go back and view it, and say that we lost so many people. But people - the invasion of Iraq does not - there is no such thing about, oh, maybe we did kill millions of people, not 1000, millions....I'm not saying that 1000 is not important, I'm just saying millions is also really important. But no one talks about that. You never go back and hear about, oh maybe we are sorry. Maybe we should commemorate that loss and that invasion day. Nope, you never hear that. About Afghanistan, more than 30 years of occupation and invasion throughout history from different countries. You never hear about that. That's the injustice. That's where injustice happens and that's when you feel a lot of - I feel, inside, I feel that there's a lot of - what's the word? There's like I'm boiling from inside. It infuriates me (female).  A male participant also stated that:  Every terrorist act we need to think what is the reason behind that first of all, the oppression against Islam everywhere around the world, every Muslim country has been attacked in the world from [inaudible] and now Syria and Libya, and after all

  20

the Muslim countries in a mess because of the western countries, so they play a big role (male). For a minority of participants though the rise of terrorism as a global threat and corresponding responses that have fallen under the banner of the “war on terror”, were judged as manufactured events being used by governments and powerful interests to discredit Islam and further justify the singling out of Muslim communities. These sentiments were particularly pronounced among young participants. As we, and others have argued, such conspiracy theories tend to gain traction among groups who feel under siege and marginalised (Cherney & Murphy 2015; Barlet and Miller 2010; Jamil and Rousseu 2011). The comment below reflects this theme and its relationship to the ongoing perception that rose throughout the focus groups that Islam was under attack: But first, can we confirm that these people committed these crimes. How do you know that some Zionist movement or American people haven’t paid their people to commit these crimes [in reference the September 11 attacks] in the name of Islam to show how bad we are? We must create a balanced view and all terrorist crimes can be confirmed that Muslims committed them. September 11 attacks to me are very suspicious, when you hear that many hundreds of people where not in the building at the time of the planes crashing into them. They said that this conspiracy was with the family of the Bin Laden as they were seen being escorted out of the country. I really hate what is going on at the moment, as we, the Muslims are being targeted every single day, people are looking down at us, they hate us, we always have to give reasons to why this happened [in reference to acts of terrorism] (male).  3.6: POLICING OF MUSLIMS  Nine of the 104 focus group participants reported they had experienced some type of direct contact with Australian security and police agencies relating to counter-terrorism. All these participants were male and drawn from the youth (N = 7) and middle age (N = 2) focus group participants. These contacts involved: having passports seized, participants being questioned due to overseas travel, being approached and interviewed by police due to the activities of family and friends, being questioned about their associations with particular individuals or groups who were under police surveillance. Some participants recalled observing episodes of police surveillance when leaving their local Mosque. One young female participant recalled: ...around specifically the XXXX mosque [identifying information removed] was unbelievable. To the extent that actually one of the vans [police] stopped in front of the mosque and started taking pictures of the young men that were leaving the mosque after prayer. Being stopped and questioned at the airport was a more commonly reported form of contact with authorities amongst the sample. While participants accepted the need for such security checks at airports, describing them as an inconvenience, there was a general feeling though that they were being subject to some type of profiling, with it creating anxiety and humiliation for some participants:

  21

Whenever we travel overseas, we go, my wife will go through security checks and she will always be checked through the thing, so she is very very upset about this, because it happens to her all the time, because she’s wearing hijab and things like that. You’re feeling bad in front of everyone. It’s not fair, they will check a few Australians as well, but they check my wife each time, every time (male). The fact that only 9 of the 104 participants reported having direct contact with authorities relating to counter-terrorism highlights that the Muslim community’s sense of being under siege may result from a perception that more Muslims are being subject to counter-terrorism policing and laws than is actually the case. This highlights the fact that vicarious experience – which is influenced by the stories shared between family and friends and media reporting – is strongly shaping the types of narratives evident within Muslim communities 4 . Stories relayed between respondent’s social networks did shape people’s overall impressions of whether the Muslim community was being unfairly targeted by police: I know one man because he’s a Muslim, he learned to fly an aeroplane, the federal police is out to take him in for questioning... why because he’s Muslim, he wants to learn how to fly, aeroplane, he can’t learn how to fly aeroplane because they think he’s a terrorist (male). I’ve heard stories of houses being raided, women and children being present, it’s almost like it’s Palestine in Australia they’re literally in with shot guns, guns you know, semi automatic weapons aiming in the faces of the children the women and the men. I mean it sounds like Palestine, but it literally happens in this country and these people we know them and they are God fearing people, who have done nothing wrong and it’s just because they have a beard or they are with a particular group or they’ve said a particular thing. I mean one of us in this room might be in trouble after what we’ve just said, only God knows and by the way I was talking of returning to Allah [repenting and returning to God - Allah meaning God in Arabic] and that’s the thing you return to Allah in this country and you’re a terrorist, so it’s a lose lose situation in one view. But in actual fact returning to Allah you can never lose, but again, but again returning to Allah is a major test living in the west. You definitely will be targeted and mistreated and not only that the worst part is the government funds these type of what do you call it justice, what do you call that? (male) What the above highlights is that a sense of being under siege and being “over policed” does not have to be experienced through direct contact with police or security agencies. It can be generated through group level perceptions and reinforced through the ways in which Muslims perceive how authorities view them. This can generate fear and apprehension about the powers that authorities have to intrude into the lives of Muslims. This vicarious narrative was reflected in the more pervasive concern evident among participants that police (ASIO and the Federal police in particular) had the power to do “what ever they wanted”, and that this was often defended by police and politicians as necessary to protect national security. The sense of powerlessness to stop police using counter-terrorism laws to target Muslims was a

                                                                                                               4 Vicarious experience has been shown to strongly influence people’s general perceptions of police (Skogan 2006).

  22

source of anxiety for participants. One female participant described this in the following way: “So scary how the AFP [the Australian Federal Police] can come into my house, do all this stuff to me, I’m not even wearing hijab, and violate my personal and Australian rights and then how do you prove it?...How are you going to prove it? Oh - and what’s their excuse, oh we’ve got to try to defend the country. They’ll pull up every single excuse. That’s what scares me”.  3.7: ATTITUDES TOWARDS AND SUPPORT FOR DOMESTIC COUNTER-TERRORISM EFFORTS  Focus group participants were asked about the use of particular counter-terrorism strategies by police. Questions probed whether such approaches were justifiable and if participants believed they would be effective or counter-productive. The reason we asked such questions was to gauge the level of support Muslims accorded to different forms of counter-terrorism policing and laws, and how this influenced their perceived legitimacy. This will have some bearing on the degree to which Muslims defer to those strategies and laws, willingly cooperate with police in efforts to tackle terrorism or extremism, and will also effect whether Muslims believe police and governments have their best interests as heart (Cherney & Murphy 2013; Tyler 2012). The 11 different strategies canvassed are listed below5. 1. Police using informants from the community who are placed in mosques or

Muslim community organisations. 2. Police coming to the homes of Muslims to question them about terrorism or

people they think are radicalised. 3. Police conducting electronic surveillance of mosques or Muslim community

organisations. 4. Police singling out people on the streets for questioning and searches based upon

their ethnicity or religion. 5. Police listening to the telephone calls or reading the e-mails of people in your

community. 6. Police tracing money contributed to Islamic charities by people in your

community. 7. Police detaining people without charge if they suspect them of involvement in

terrorism or supporting terrorism. 8. Police working with Muslim communities to help identify people who might be at

risk of becoming radicalised. 9. Police consulting with Muslim leaders (e.g. Imams) to tackle the influence of

Islamic extremism. 10. Police establishing forums to allow Muslims to voice their opinions about how

they are treated by police and how police should serve their community. 11. Recruiting people of Muslim faith into the police.                                                                                                                  5  Given it was unlikely that many focus group participants would have been aware of the specific parameters and content of counter-terrorism legislation that existed in Australia, it was deemed as more viable to ask respondents about general approaches to counter-terrorism compared to collating judgments about the existence of specific counter-terrorism laws. The same applies for the survey outlined in chapter 4 and 5.

  23

Participants voiced some concern about the use of approaches 1 to 7 listed above, stating that they represented unwarranted and intrusive interventions that violated the rights of Muslims. What was particularly strong was that covert and “hard” edge interventions such as the use of informants and surveillance, and laws allowing for pre-emptive detention or the tracing of monies given to Islamic charities, were judged as undermining the levels of trust that Muslims had in police and governments. As one male respondent stated in relation to the use of informants: “It makes the community not trust the police”. When it came to police visiting the homes of Muslims to question them about terrorism or those they think are radicalised, one middle-aged male participant described how contact with police in such circumstances made him feel paranoid and insecure, stating that: In fact ASIO visited my house one day, and they were questioning, what do you think about this, and I said look I don’t think about nothing, I don’t know anything about them people. And they went to all the Imams and they visited most of the Imams and they started to visit every Imam and they start to identify for example, they ask you about me, then ask me about you, and other people...   You feel insecure, you feel discriminated, we feel like lots of things, you know they can use this, to put two things together... make you guilty (male). Another concern voiced about the use of counter-terrorism laws was the risk they posed in actually generating extremism among young Muslims in particular. One participant stated: “these things are what drives people to become radical, these laws” (gender of participant not recorded). The singling out and targeting of Muslims through the application of counter-terrorism laws was of particular concern to participants, which could make Muslims actually more defiant. One female participant in a new arrival focus group stated: “I think in a way this is actually forcing people to think, that if they’re going to target us, we might as well give them something to target” (female). The above results should not be taken to mean that respondents did not support authorities in their efforts to tackle terrorism or extremism, rather it was how policies and laws were being applied; the key theme was a sense of unfairness in how laws were being used to target the Muslim community in Australia. Also respondents voiced support for police, recognising that police "had a job to do". There was far greater support among the focus group sample for more consultative approaches such as forms of community engagement (approaches 8-10 listed above). Working with Muslim leaders, such as Imams, was regarded as more constructive and was judged to be the most effective way for police to engage Muslims in general. However, even here respondents were not unanimous in supporting such community engagement efforts, and stated that they carried some risks in being judged as illegitimate by community members (youth in particular) because leaders were seen as “selling out” by “joining forces” with police. For example, in relation to police consulting Imams to tackle extremism one female in a new arrival focus group stated: I think using Imams for this purpose won’t actually achieve anything. I know from my mosque that I attend, the Imam is always trying to give a positive influence with the community, but it’s not his job to stop something that doesn’t exist, you’re an Imam at

  24

a mosque that doesn’t promote terrorism - why would you then? Because now you’re monopolising your followers, the same way the government and the police are. A key risk for Muslim leaders being seen to partner with police was that it could generate feelings of distrust towards community engagement efforts and fuel suspicion over the loyalties of Muslim leaders, which was only judged as further dividing the Muslim community. For instance one young female stated: I don’t think we are ready for the police to work with our community leaders, because the young people will see it as our leaders have joined forces with the police. A young male who had attended police consultative forums conducted with the Muslim community in Brisbane, and who had been questioned by ASIO due to his association with a particular Islamic youth group stated:  We know the Council of Imams, they have their regular meetings with ASIO. What happens is that now they're creating a big rift between the community and the youth. The youth feel like they can't trust the Imams anymore. So they go off - they go we're not coming here anymore [in reference to attending their local Mosque]. We're not even going to talk to them anymore [i.e. Imams] ..... Even guys our age are of a different mentality, they've had their fair share of bad experiences with the feds and ASIO. So when they hear okay, these idiots that treated us so badly are now forming some sort of an alliance with our local Imams, where do they stand?  (male).      One young male participant reflected these negative sentiments about Muslim leaders working with police, and correspondingly voiced his distrust of his local Imam, stating: It's frustrating. You know, these people [in reference to Imams], they're corrupt...The whole Muslim community is listening to them and respecting them. It gives you a bad feeling to know this is happening in your midst [in reference to police and Imams working together] and that also you, they're also – they'll rat on you and they’ll be the first ones to tell the police, like if they’re suspicious about you. If I came to here to XXXX [location removed] Masjid [i.e. Mosque] and I have a conversation with the Imam about a controversial topic, he'll probably be the first one to go and tell the federal police, I'm suspicious about this guy. Police recruiting more Muslims as police officers was identified as a positive step and was seen as important in demonstrating that the police and Muslims could work together. When asked what the police could do to improve their relations with the Muslim community, overall participants believed that police needed to learn more about the Islamic religion and needed to engage with Muslims in a way that respected religious practices. For instance, police entering homes to conduct questioning of suspects or persons of interest, without first ensuring female occupants had their headscarf or veil secured was seen as potentially offensive and inflammatory. Another example cited was the need for police to remove their shoes when entering a Mosque or Muslim's home. One young male participant recalled a situation where such understanding would have gone a long way in defusing conflict between Muslims and police:

  25

Once I was in the mosque, that time there were some problems... right and they [i.e. police] are searching the mosque. Those police guys who are climbing on the mosque stairs with their shoes, at that time the Imam, the Sheikh, he was requesting the police because it is a praying place - please don’t go inside with the shoes, but those guys don’t understand...and last of all some Lebanese guys with the big muscle, they started pushing the cops and it become a you know, they started fighting. If the police was given right...understandings earlier, that time they could understand it is their [Muslims] holy place, so they shouldn’t be climbing up with their shoes. 3.8: SUMMING UP  The focus group results illustrate how the war on terror has shaped the lives of Muslims in Australia and its effect on their sense of identity and belonging. Muslims carry the burden of stigmatisation and experience a form of collective attribution by the constant conflation of Islam with terrorism. One consequence is that the frustration and anger Muslims feel about being labelled a terrorist threat are projected onto counter-terrorism efforts, which can generate suspicion about whether police and governments have the Muslim community's best interests at heart. As already stated, there are some limitations with the focus group design and sample and we need to be mindful of over generalising from the focus group results. But there are some lessons for counter-terrorism that our focus group results point to. One is that there is a real risk that the types of experiences reported above play into the hands of Islamic violent-extremists by providing fuel for a key narrative they use to justify their actions: that Muslims are a supressed and victimised minority. State and institutional responses to terrorism need to be mindful that counter-terrorism is also about impression management. What this means is that given Muslim communities feel under siege and unfairly targeted by counter-terrorism policing and laws, they are going to be more wary and suspicious of community engagement strategies adopted by the government and police. Also for Muslim communities who feel under siege, their primary focus by default becomes resisting and calling attention to perceived intimidation and unfairness, rather than on working to marginalize radicalism (Yazbeck & Balz 2008). If our focus group results are reflective of broader sentiment within the Muslim community in Australia, then it does point to the possibility that any level of collective goodwill that Muslims may have towards efforts to prevent terrorism and extremism is being eroded by the social and political responses surrounding terrorism. This can make police engagement of the Muslim community all the more difficult.

  26

4: MUSLIM COMMUNITY SURVEY The second phase of data collection for our research involved the development of the ‘Being Muslim in Australia Survey’ (BMA Survey). Principal investigators for the BMA Survey were Dr Adrian Cherney and Associate Professor Kristina Murphy. The BMA Survey was designed to examine Australian Muslims’ attitudes and perceptions regarding the following topics: a) identity in Australia; b) community attachment and belonging; c) attitudes regarding policing (including perceptions of police legitimacy, procedural justice, police effectiveness, and police bias); d) attitudes regarding existing counter-terrorism laws and counter-terrorism policing; e) willingness to cooperate with police in combatting crime and terrorism; f) participants’ resistance and defiance to authority; g) feelings of suspicion and oppression; and h) attitudes regarding terrorism. Demographic and background information about participants was also collected in the BMA Survey. A total of 800 Muslim participants living in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne completed the BMA Survey in 2014. In this chapter and the next we outline the methods employed in the BMA Survey and provide the results of some preliminary analyses. In this chapter we describe the methodology employed and the sample collected. We also provide information about response rates. In Chapter 5 we present selected findings from the BMA Survey. In Chapter 6 we detail scale construction of our key variables of interest. In the appendices we present a codebook that details the frequency distribution of responses for each survey question in the BMA Survey. 4.1. SURVEY PROCEDURE A total of 800 face-to-face interviews with members of the Muslim community in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne were conducted between the 17th of June and the 9th of August 2014 (total of 53 days in the field). Two hundred respondents were from Brisbane, 300 from Sydney and 300 from Melbourne. Similar to the focus groups, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne were chosen as the sites for the study given the majority of Australia’s Muslims live in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria (i.e., 6.0% for Queensland, 49.6% for NSW and 32.1% for Victoria), with the highest density of these communities living in each of the three selected cities. To administer the survey, Drs Cherney and Murphy again engaged the services of Specialised Research and Strategy. This was done for a number of reasons. Specialised was aware of, and experienced in, the complex sampling requirements and delivery associated with surveying Muslim communities. They are a company experienced in collecting survey and interview data from ethnic groups and have undertaken work for the Departments of Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs and Attorney Generals. They also employ trained personnel with the appropriate language and cultural skills to survey Muslims and have experience and knowledge of Muslim communities in Australia. Specialised had also worked closely with the researchers on a previous project on procedural justice policing with ethnic minority groups in Australia (see Murphy, Cherney, Wickes, Mazerolle & Sargeant, 2012). Hence, for

  27

the BMA Survey, Specialised was responsible for sample selection, recruitment of participants, and the administration of the BMA Survey. Drs Cherney and Murphy developed the BMA Survey in consultation with Specialised and two Muslim fieldwork managers who were employed by Specialised to work on both the focus group and survey components of this project. An initial draft survey was developed that was sent to Specialised and the fieldwork managers, who reviewed it for length and wording. Some initial items were modified or removed due to the sensitive nature of the questions (e.g. asking respondents how often they prayed was deemed to be too intrusive and removed from the survey) or to reduce the overall survey length (e.g. questions relating to the fairness and effectiveness of particular counter-terrorism approaches were removed due to having explored this issue in the focus groups). Questions examining the maintenance of order and particular freedoms, and the authority of religious leaders, family and political decisions were also removed to reduce the length of the survey. A final survey was agreed on and then sent to Specialised for conversion into the appropriate format for delivery in the field. Trained interviewers (all were Muslim) conducted the BMA Survey in each participant’s preferred language. Three city-specific survey teams with approximately 6-8 interviewers in each team were deployed. That is, one dedicated team for each of the three (3) cities. Participants were initially recruited by phone, and resulting interviews were conducted face-to-face involving one interviewer and one participant at a location of the participant’s choice, using pen and paper surveys. The BMA Survey contained 131 questions, with individual questions clustered within thematic groups. The average interview length was in the range of 40-50 minutes. Interviews were primarily administered on weekends, after Friday prayers, and outside of working hours. Recruitment calls were made between 6pm-8pm weekdays. Participants were offered a $50 gift voucher to thank them for their participation. Specialised used Microsoft Excel to input and manage the data collected. This dataset was then provided to the Drs Cherney and Murphy (the Project researchers). Data cleaning and preliminary analyses were undertaken by the researchers using SPSS statistical software. Survey Team Briefings and Question/Answer Checks Prior to administering the BMA Survey, an in-person briefing was provided to all Specialised interviewers in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. These were 4-hour long briefings and followed a fixed schedule that covered the following topics: background and objective of the research; administration of survey; mockup scenario; question and answer time. The administration of the survey in the briefing session included going through the survey from beginning to end, addressing each question, how questions should be asked, how to probe for further information if necessary, detail required for open ended questions, and how to address participant questions as they arise. The mockup scenario was administered by two interviewers in front of the interviewer team, to give interviewers a feel for the survey, to trouble-shoot questions as they arose, and to give direction on how to deal with potential scenarios. This training was followed by an additional two days of pilot interviews per city. Each interviewer was required to

  28

submit a minimum of two (2) pilot interviews for feedback. Interviewers with unsatisfactory pilot interviews were given feedback and were required to complete an additional pilot interview before commencement of fieldwork. The pilot interviews were attended by fieldwork managers employed at Specialised. Sample Design and Creation Quota sampling was adopted to recruit participants in the BMA Survey. Specialised was instructed by the researchers to undertake interviews with a representative sample of 300 Muslims living in Sydney, 300 Muslims in Melbourne, and 200 Muslims in Brisbane. A Random Digit Dialing (RDD) method of sample generation was not considered a cost-effective approach for contacting the Muslim sample required. This was due to the relatively small number of Australian Muslims living in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane (Muslims comprise only about 2.2% of Australia’s current population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014). This is so even in local areas where high concentrations of these populations live. An ethnic naming system was therefore used to draw a generic Muslim sample (their country of ancestry was of no concern for the purpose of recruitment). A list of household phone numbers was then generated from the city-based Electronic White Pages (EWP) using the ethnic naming system (see Appendix 1 for a list of the surnames used). A total of 525 Muslim surnames were used in generating the sample pool of almost 10,000 records. No mobile telephone numbers were generated as part of the sample, and this is likely to have depreciated the likelihood of capturing respondents from younger age groups (including those that are under 18 years), or those living independently or away from the family home. Sample records were generated in the range of around 11-12 times the n=800 completed surveys required. In other words, almost 10000 records in total, or 3500 records for each of Sydney and Melbourne and 2500 records for Brisbane, were generated. Participants were then randomly drawn from these city-based sample pools and were contacted by telephone to set up arrangements for a face-to-face interview. During initial telephone contact, a check was made to ensure that the participant qualified as being Muslim (i.e., did they consider themselves to be Muslim). A ‘next birthday’ method was used to select the person over 18 years living in that household. The common ethnic surname based approach has some limitations, including the exclusion of households with unlisted telephone numbers, and to a much lesser degree the exclusion of some females that may marry outside of their faith. However, this approach proved successful when used in a previous project of ethnic minority communities in Australia that was conducted by the researchers (see Murphy et al., 2012). Sample Management A total of 3500 sample records were generated for each of Sydney and Melbourne, respectively, and 2500 sample records for Brisbane. These sample records were released in batches of 100-150 per interviewer as required so as not to “burn” the

  29

sample too quickly. Records of attempted and used numbers were kept, and all interviewers were instructed on the highly confidential nature of household numbers, reinforcing they should not be used / dialled for any other purpose than the research. All interviewers were also instructed not to disclose any of the phone numbers they were allocated. All records were then de-identified following fieldwork. The interviewers themselves were responsible for the recruitment of all participants. Interviewers randomly selected the sample numbers to recruit and make appointments for face-to-face interviews at a time and in a neutral location agreed upon by both parties. These locations varied from public meeting places such as local shopping centres, cafes, libraries, and community centres, either within the vicinity of the household or the person’s place of work, and at times in and around the local mosque, whichever best suited the participant. Survey Qualification Interviewers were able to confirm that households qualified for the research through an initial call using a screener question following an introduction and background to the research. The interviewer asked the household member: May I confirm that you are a Muslim? If the respondent replied ‘yes’, the individual was asked whether they would be willing to participate in the research. If so, an appointment time to undertake the interview was arranged.

4.2: CALL OUTCOMES AND SURVEY RESPONSE RATE As noted above, Specialised randomly drew a sampling pool of close to 10000 phone numbers attached to eligible surnames from the Electronic White Pages (3500 in Melbourne, 3500 in Sydney, and 2500 in Brisbane). These were land-line phone numbers rather than mobile phone numbers. Potential participants were contacted at random from the sampling pool in each of the three cities. They were contacted between 6pm and 8pm weekdays to arrange a face-to-face interview at a location of the participant’s choosing. Interviews were generally conducted outside of work hours (i.e. not between 9am and 5pm). For each phone number dialled, a call cycle of five attempts was made before numbers were discontinued (interviewers reported being able to contact a person generally within three call attempts). When contact was made with a householder an interview was arranged and undertaken with the person in the household who was over 18 and was next due to celebrate their birthday. Call outcomes appear in Table 4.1 below for each of the three cities, and for the full sample. The response rate is defined as a proportion of sample members who could be contacted within the fieldwork period and who were not identified as ‘out of scope’ or who could not be contacted. A total of 8,765 sample records of the 9,500 selected records were contacted by phone to achieve n=800 completed surveys (see Table 4.1). The final overall response rate for the full BMA Survey sample was 18%. There was very little difference in the response rate across Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane.

  30

The response rates by city that are reported in Table 4.1 are generally in keeping with similar studies conducted in Australia (see Murphy et al., 2012; Mazerolle, Wickes, Cherney, Murphy, Sargeant & Zahnow, 2012). The low response rate is not surprising, given the efficacy of finding Muslims using a generic naming system, and due to Muslims being more cautious about outsiders, particularly for a study focused on counter-terrorism policing. Interviewer feedback suggested that while many of those contacted were guarded about unknown people calling into their household, the ability to speak to someone in their own language (and not just in English) as well as the use of Muslim style “greetings” (e.g., Arabic language welcome, brother, sister) was a definite advantage for the purposes of engagement. Arabic was the more commonly spoken language among Muslims in this sample (given the sizeable Lebanese Muslim cohort). Finally, “Refusals” were a high percentage of the in-scope records. Reasons for refusing to participate in the study included: change of mind / second thoughts; no reason given; no time / too busy; mistrust of research aims / lack of confidence in aims; different person in household / original person not available; illness; other (don’t remember agreeing, different person calling in to household which was confusing). Table 4.1. Response rate across location CITY Sydney Melbourne Brisbane TOTALS

Sample names 3500 3500 2500 9500

Call attempts 3149 3392 2224 8765

Unusable 1 207 259 209 675

Valid numbers 2 2942 3133 2015 8090

Out of scope 3 967 993 620 2580

Unresolved 4 311 361 314 986

In-scope 5 1664 1779 1081 4524

Refusals 685 731 444 1860

Unused 571 636 369 1576

Interviews completed 300 300 200 800

RESPONSE RATE 6 18.02% 16.86% 18.50% 17.68% 1. Unusable: phone numbers that were disconnected or were the wrong number 2. Valid numbers: (call attempts – unusable) 3. Out of scope: individuals who did not qualify for the research (i.e., were not Muslim) 4. Unresolved: phone numbers where an individual could not be contacted (e.g., phone engaged, answering machine, no answer, fax/modem) 5. In-scope: (valid numbers – out of scope – unresolved) 6. Response rate: (interviews completed / in-scope) x 100 4.3: SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVENESS One way of judging how representative a survey is of the population from which it is drawn is to compare the survey’s demographic variables answered by respondents

  31

with population data. As noted already, we adopted quota sampling in three cities in three States of Australia. Hence, the State distribution of participants did not align with population estimates. However, in order to check the representativeness of the sample relative to Muslim population figures with respect to other key demographic data, the 2006 Australian Census data was used to compare our sample with the Australian Muslim population in general. While our sample was drawn from people aged 17+, the figures reported in the following tables use Census data collected from Muslims aged 15+. There is therefore likely to be some differences across the two groups due to this discrepancy. As can be seen in Table 4.2, the sample of respondents who completed the BMA Survey differed slightly from the distribution of males and females in the Australian Muslim population. Men were slightly under-represented, while women were slightly over-represented (by 2.1%). However, these differences were only small. Table 4.2. Distribution of males and females in the BMA Survey and 2006 Census Sample group Sample

proportion Census

proportion Absolute difference

Male 50.5 52.6 -2.1

Female 49.5 47.4 +2.1

Total 100.0 100.0

When comparing the BMA Survey sample to the age breakdown of Census data it was found that our sample differed slightly from the age distribution in the Census (see Table 4.3). In the BMA Survey, respondents between the ages of 15 to 24 were slightly over-represented compared to Census figures, while those between 25 and 64 were slightly under represented. Again, however, these differences were relatively small. Table 4.3. Distribution of age groups in the BMA Survey and 2006 Census Sample group Sample

proportion Census

proportion Absolute difference

15-24* 32.7 26.8 +5.9

25-44 43.3 47.8 -4.5

45-64 17.0 21.1 -4.1

65+ 7.0 4.3 +2.7

Total 100.0 100.0 * note: our sample only consisted of those aged 17+ According to 2006 Census figures, approximately 58% of Australia’s Muslim population was born overseas. In the BMA Survey sample, however, Australian born respondents were significantly over-represented (by about 16% - see Table 4.4).

  32

Table 4.4. Distribution of Australian-born versus overseas born Muslims in the BMA Survey and 2006 Census Sample group Sample

proportion Census

proportion Absolute difference

Australian born 57.9 42.0 +15.9

Overseas born 42.1 58.0 -15.9

Total 100.0 100.0 4.4: ITEM NON-RESPONSE Given the face-to-face interview methodology adopted, item non-response or missing data in the BMA Survey has been very low. For example, the missing data on both the age and sex variables was 0%. Typically, the percent missing on the attitudinal variables throughout the survey has been between 0% and 0.1%. Only one survey item contained more missing values than 0.1%. One question asking about views of police treatment received during a recent encounter with police had approximately 24% missing values. On closer inspection of this particular item, however, non-response was found to be due to the person not having had an encounter with a police officer. Hence, this question was not applicable to them. Item non-response was therefore not an issue for the BMA Survey.

  33

5: SELECTED SURVEY FINDINGS

The BMA Survey consisted of four different sections. Each section was designed to measure different aspects of respondents’ background, attitudes and opinions about being Muslim in Australia in the current climate surrounding Islamic-inspired terrorism. Section 1 of the survey collected key information about the demographic background of survey respondents. Section 2 was designed to assess how Muslims in Australia see themselves in society and how they believe others in society view them. Section 3 contained a large number of questions assessing Muslims’ attitudes toward police. Section 4 focused specifically on the policing of terrorism, with respondents being asked about the policing of counter-terrorism, respondents’ willingness to cooperate with police to combat terrorism, and how policing of terrorism has impacted upon them personally. Chapter 5 of this report highlights some of the important findings from each of these four sections of the survey. It should be noted that the results presented here are only a snap shot of findings and are presented in descriptive form only. We have not taken into account any of the biases between the sample and population data. In-depth analyses of the results will commence in the near future. Further descriptive data is also provided in Appendix 2 where the frequency distribution of responses for each survey question is provided. All scales and measures used in the survey are reported in Chapter 6 and Appendix 2. 5.1: PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND The first section of the BMA Survey contained some background information about respondents. Some of these items were used to compare the sample with population estimates made available by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (see sample representativeness section 4.3 in Chapter 4). In summary, it was found that 50.5% of the respondents to the survey were male and 49.5% were female. The average age of respondents was 34.9 years old (SD = 15.5), with respondents’ age ranging from 17 to 82 years of age. The average age for male respondents was 35.2 years, with male respondents ranging from 17 to 82 years of age, and the average age of female respondents was 34.6 years, with female respondents ranging from 17 to 78 years of age. Most respondents reported that they were born in Australia (58%), and 99% reported being an Australian citizen. When asked to describe their religious background, 31% reported belonging to the Shia Muslim faith, while 69% reported being Sunni Muslim. More than 50% of the sample (53.2%) reported attending Mosque on a weekly basis. Only 10% of the sample reported that they attended Mosque a couple of times a year or less. Eighty seven percent (87%) of the sample reported that they participated in Ramadan fasting on all days of Ramadan. Thirty-six different ancestral backgrounds were identified by respondents. A significant majority of respondents reported coming from Lebanese ancestry (38%). This was followed by Pakistani ancestry (11%), Indonesian (10%), Iraqi (7%), Egyptian (5%) and Turkish (3%) ancestry. English was the primary language spoken at home by 43% of the sample. Forty six percent (46%) of the sample reported being married, with the remainder being divorced, separated, widowed, or never having been married.

  34

With respect to educational status, very few respondents had limited schooling, with only 5.6% indicating they had no schooling or only primary school level education. Twenty percent (20%) held a bachelor degree or higher qualification (with 5.9% indicating they had attained a postgraduate qualification). The proportion of tertiary qualified people in the general Australian population is 46% (ABS, 2006). Section 1 of the BMA Survey also asked respondents about their household income levels. The median income was reported to be in the $56,000 - $60,000 range. When examining labour force status it was found that most respondents were working—44% worked full time and 16% worked part time. A further 5% were retired, 18.5% were studying, and the remaining 16% of respondents were either unemployed (4%), or were attending to home duties (12%).

5.2: MUSLIMS’ PLACE IN AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY Section 2 of the BMA Survey asked respondents about how they viewed themselves within Australian society. Given the large number of Muslims in the population who are actively practicing their faith, we wanted to gain a sense of whether Muslims in Australia view themselves primarily in terms of their religion, and whether their identity as an Australian was just as important as their faith. Prior research in Australia has revealed that cooperation with police, and integration within society, is best promoted when citizens identify strongly with their country (i.e., Australia; see Murphy, 2013; Murphy & Cherney, 2011). Respondents were therefore asked about their strength of identification with being Muslim and with being Australian. The individual survey items used to construct these two identity scales are presented in Chapter 6 of this report. It was found that Muslims identified much more strongly with their faith (Mean=4.44; SD=0.54) than they did as Australians (Mean = 3.83; SD=0.84). The difference between these mean scores was statistically significant, t(799)=17.63, p<0.001. Figure 1 depicts this difference graphically.

Figure 1. Mean identity scores for Muslim identity and Australian identity

2  

2.5  

3  

3.5  

4  

4.5  

5  

Muslim  identity   Australian  identity  

Mean  score  

  35

Importantly, the correlation between the Muslim and Australian identity scales was only r=0.07, suggesting that scores on each scale were orthogonal; in other words, strong identification with being Muslim did not necessarily mean that respondents did not identify strongly with Australia. Respondents could have identified strongly with Australia and strongly with Islam, or they could have identified strongly with Islam and weakly with Australia, and vice versa. Section 2 also asked Muslims about how they thought the majority of Australians viewed them. As can be seen in Figure 2 below, the majority of Muslims felt that Australians respected their way of life and what they had to contribute to society, although the highest percentage score was still only 65.7%, suggesting about 35% of respondents did not feel respected or accepted by Australians.

Figure 2. Percentage of the sample indicating they ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the statements. Regarding perceptions about the fairness in which Muslims are treated in Australia, the sample also generally agreed that Muslims were treated fairly in the workplace and in schools, and that they were treated fairly when dealing with authorities. However, only a minority of the sample (29.4%) felt Muslims were treated fairly by the media (see Figure 3).

0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  100  

Australians  respect  how  you  live  your  life  

Australians  respect  what  you  contribute  to  

society  

Australians  respect  what  you  believe  

%  

  36

Figure 3. Perceived fairness by which different groups treat Muslims in Australia 5.3: POLICING As noted earlier, the BMA Survey was undertaken as part of a funded Australian Research Council project that sought to explore how Muslims in Australia view police, and counter-terrorism policing more specifically. Of particular interest to the research was to explore how perceptions of procedural justice policing influenced Muslims’ perceptions of police legitimacy and their willingness to work with them to combat terrorism. Section 3 of the BMA Survey therefore contained a large number of items assessing respondents’ attitudes to police. A number of important concepts were measured, including: (a) respondents’ perceptions about the legitimacy of the police (measured through respondents’ trust and confidence in police; obligation to obey police; views about the moral alignment in values that police share with the public; the legality of police behaviour); (b) whether obligation to obey was elicited by a moral obligation to do obey, or due to fear of consequences (i.e., dull compulsion to obey); (c) perceptions about whether police use procedural justice when dealing with the Muslim community; (d) police effectiveness in dealing with crime; and (e) the level of defiance Muslims exhibit toward police. Police legitimacy Past research has revealed that people’s willingness to comply and cooperate with police and the law can be strongly influenced by how legitimate the police are seen to be. Tyler (1990) and others (e.g., Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Murphy, 2005; Murphy, Hinds & Fleming, 2008; Murphy, Tyler & Curtis, 2009) have shown that one’s perceptions of the legitimacy of the police is key to securing their compliance with laws, even if those laws might be incompatible with an individual’s morals. Legitimacy reflects the degree to which people recognize the right of an authority to govern their behaviour. If people view an authority as legitimate, they agree that the authority has the right to govern them. Providing an authority with legitimacy therefore transfers to them the authority and right to define what constitutes acceptable forms of behaviour. As such, citizens will be more willing to defer to a legitimate authority.

0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  100  

Treated  fairly  at  work/school  

Treated  fairly  by  authorities  

Treated  fairly  by  media  

%  

  37

Legitimacy has typically been conceptualized and measured in the literature as people’s ‘obligation to obey’ an authority, and by the perceived ‘institutional trust’ of an authority. Tyler’s (1990) measures of ‘obligation to obey’ and ‘institutional trust’ feature prominently in most of the empirical research on perceived legitimacy. Jackson et al. (2012), however, have recently suggested that legitimacy entails more than just trust and obligation to obey. They have recently defined and measured police legitimacy as a multidimensional concept with three interlinked elements: (1) obligation to obey; (2) moral alignment; and (3) legality. Obligation to obey is consistent with Tyler’s definition of legitimacy, with a legitimate authority being able to garner obedience from the public. Moral alignment reflects the belief that authorities and the public share broadly similar moral positions about appropriate law-abiding behavior. Legality reflects whether authorities themselves follow their own rules. If authorities are seen by the public to be acting in an ethical and unbiased manner, then they will be seen to be more legitimate. Each of the four different aspects of legitimacy was measured in the BMA Survey. Overall, the police were generally seen to be legitimate by our Muslim respondents (see scores below). Trust and confidence Trust and confidence in the police was measured via three survey questions. Higher scores on this 3-item scale indicate more favourable assessments of police (maximum score = 5). Overall, Muslims participating in the BMA Survey responded favourably to this measure, with most being very trusting of police (Mean=4.21; SD=0.66; maximum score out of 5). In fact 88% of respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the following statement: ‘I trust the police in my community’. Obligation to obey Obligation to obey police was assessed via six survey items (e.g., ‘I feel a moral obligation to obey police’ - also see Chapter 6). Like for the trust scale presented above, respondents felt a strong obligation to obey police in Australia (Mean=4.08; SD=0.56; maximum score out of 5). Moral alignment Moral alignment was assessed via four items (e.g., ‘The police share the same values as ordinary citizens like me’). While the average response to this scale was above the midpoint, it was not as high as either the trust or obligation to obey scale (Mean=3.97; SD=0.69). Overall, however, Muslims still appear to think that the morals of police in Australia align with their own beliefs about right and wrong. Legality The final legitimacy subscale assessed the degree to which Muslims felt police acted in an ethical and nonbiased manner when dealing with the public (e.g., ‘I know of, or have heard about, someone in my community being discriminated against by police’). Four survey items were used to construct this subscale (see Chapter 6), with a higher score indicating greater perceptions of police bias. It was found on average that Muslims did not feel the police were overly biased or unethical in their dealings with the public (Mean=2.22; SD=0.88). Two of the four survey items used to construct the ‘legality’ scale have also typically been used to measure perceptions of distributive justice. In a policing context, distributive justice refers to the equal distribution of policing services across different

  38

groups or communities. Two of the items were therefore also used to construct a distributive justice scale (e.g., ‘The police sometimes give people from specific ethnic backgrounds less help than they give others’; also see Chapter 6). The items were reverse coded so that a higher score indicates greater perceptions of distributive justice. Respondents in the BMA Survey, on average, assessed police quite well on this measure; most believed the police distributed their services fairly across the community (Mean=3.75; SD=1.08), although given the large standard deviation score there was a lot of variability in this measure, suggesting that many respondents felt the police could do better in this area. Dull compulsion Tankebe (2009) recently argued that in order to understand the circumstances in which people will feel obligated to obey police, it is important to assess whether they obey police through a moral obligation to do so, or due to a fear that the consequences for disobedience will be negative. In other words, Tankebe argued that some people in society might comply with police directives out of a ‘dull compulsion’ to obey, rather than out of a sense of moral obligation. While Tankebe was unable to test his proposition empirically, it does raise an important point, particularly when trying to understand how marginalized populations view and respond to police. The BMA Survey therefore sought to empirically measure this notion of dull compulsion. Survey respondents were presented with four statements (e.g., ‘I often obey police because I fear the repercussion of doing otherwise’ - also see Chapter 6). A higher score on this four-item scale therefore suggests that people obey police because of the negative consequences for not doing so, not out of an intrinsic motivation to do so. Interestingly, respondents to the BMA Survey scored very high on this scale (Mean=4.15; SD=0.59), suggesting that Muslims’ obligation to obey police was highly influenced by a fear of the consequences for doing otherwise. Procedural justice policing Research on the legitimacy of police has revealed that police can most effectively build their legitimacy through treating members of the public with procedural justice (e.g., Tyler 1990; Hinds & Murphy 2007). In the social psychological literature, procedural justice is conceptualized as involving the quality of treatment and quality of decision-making received by an authority. Criteria typically used to define procedurally just treatment include: 1) respect; 2) neutrality; 3) trustworthiness; and 4) voice (Goodman-Delahunty 2010; Tyler & Murphy 2011). Respect refers to whether the police are respectful and polite in their dealings with a person, and also whether they respect people’s rights under the law. If police treat people with dignity and are respectful in how they issue orders or enforce laws then people will view them as more procedurally fair. Research has found that people are particularly sensitive to the way in which authorities issue directives, with disrespectful treatment being shown to produce reactance and negative evaluations of an authority (Murphy 2004). Neutrality involves making decisions based upon consistently applied legal rules and principles and the facts of a case, not upon personal opinions and biases. People want to feel assured that police are treating them in the same way as any other individual in society. Transparency or openness about how decisions are being made also facilitates the belief that decision-making procedures are neutral. A police officer’s trustworthiness is an indicator of whether the officer will be motivated to treat a person in a fair manner. People react favourably to the judgment that a police officer they are interacting with is benevolent and caring and is sincerely trying to do

  39

what is best for the people they deal with. Authorities communicate their trustworthiness and fairness when they listen to people’s accounts and explain or justify their actions in ways that show an awareness of, and sensitivity to, people’s needs and concerns (e.g., awareness of their culture). Finally, voice is important to individuals. People value having the opportunity to voice issues or their concerns to an authority before a decision is made in their case. If a police officer then takes these concerns into account in the decision-making process then people will be left feeling that they have received procedural justice. In summary, then, if individuals are treated respectfully by an authority, are dealt with in an unbiased fashion, believe the authority has demonstrated trustworthy motives, and has taken the individual’s concerns into account before reaching a decision, then individuals will evaluate the interaction as more procedurally just. Each of these four elements of procedural justice was assessed in the BMA Survey. An overall five-item procedural justice scale was constructed by asking respondents to reply to five statements about how the police treat members of the Muslim community (e.g., ‘Police treat people with dignity and respect’; see also Chapter 6); a higher score on the procedural justice scale suggests that police treat Muslims with procedural justice. Overall, Muslims responding to these items were somewhat mixed in their views about police use of procedural justice (Mean=3.93; SD=0.67). While the mean score was above the midpoint, indicating favourable assessments of procedural justice, relative to the legitimacy items presented above, the mean score on the procedural justice scale was somewhat lower, suggesting the police may have some room to improve the way in which they treat members of the Muslim community. After all, it only takes one negative story about unfair treatment being delivered by police to destroy a community’s perceptions about procedural justice (Skogan 2006a; Bradford et al. 2009). BMA Survey respondents were also asked how many times in the preceding 12-month period they had had contact with a police officer. Only 27% of the sample had had contact with a police officer in the preceding 12-month period. A total of 609 respondents then answered a question about how they felt they had been personally treated by police during their most recent contact. Overall, the majority felt they had been treated with procedural justice during the specific contact (Mean=4.09; SD=0.74). This finding suggests that personal experiences of procedural justice policing tend to be more favourable than general perceptions about how police treat members of the Muslim community. This suggests that vicarious experiences and stories about unfair treatment by other members of a community may influence people’s general perceptions of police use of procedural justice. This finding was also evident in the focus group data (see Chapter 3). Police effectiveness The effectiveness of police in dealing with crime and disorder in the community is another important variable for building perceptions of the legitimacy of police. If police are unable to fight crime in the community, they are unlikely to garner views that they are legitimate. BMA Survey respondents were asked to assess how good a job police are doing in their community when dealing with four issues: 1) dealing with problems that concern them individually; 2) preventing crime; 3) keeping order; and 4) solving crime. Overall, respondents were very favourable about police effectively dealing with problems in their community (Mean=4.19; SD=0.68).

  40

Defiance levels exhibited toward police Section 3 of the BMA Survey also included a series of attitudinal statements, designed to measure motivational postures adopted by the respondents towards the police and the law. Motivational postures represent the ways in which individuals position themselves psychologically in relation to an authority. They are markers of defiance, and have been shown to facilitate compliant or non-compliant conduct (Braithwaite 2003, 2009). The posture that reflects an overall positive orientation to authority is commitment. If a person adopts a committed posture towards police and the law, it means they view the policing institution as important, and they feel a sense of moral obligation to comply with the law. Committed individuals cooperate with laws due to a sense of obligation and good will. In contrast, are the defiant postures of resistance and disengagement. Resistance reflects doubts about the intentions of police to behave cooperatively and benignly towards individuals they encounter. People who adopt a resistant posture are therefore likely to view police officers with antagonism and are likely to display active resistant behaviours (such as name calling or defiant actions). This posture also provides the rhetoric for calling on people to be watchful, to fight for their rights, and to curb police power. Thus, resistant people believe that we should be prepared to take a stand against authority if needed. The posture of disengagement also communicates resistance, but here individuals have moved beyond seeing any point in challenging authority. Disengaged individuals do not care that they are not doing the right thing by police or the law and they believe that the police cannot do anything to them if they choose to disobey them or the law. From this description, it can be seen that citizens who adopt a committed posture are more likely to be compliant and cooperative with police, while those adopting the other two postures are more likely to be noncompliant or uncooperative. From the BMA Survey data, the posture receiving the strongest endorsement among respondents was commitment. Specifically, it was found that 96% of Muslim Australians reported being highly committed to the police (i.e., those responding above the midpoint of the three item commitment scale; see Figure 4). Their mean score on the commitment scale was (Mean=4.10; SD=0.58). This was followed by the posture of resistance (65.8% of respondents responded ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ to these items; measured via five survey items; Mean=3.10; SD=0.62), and disengagement (16% endorsement by the sample; measured via four survey items; Mean=2.32; SD=0.60). Figure 4 shows this pattern of results and compares the results from the Muslim respondents to the BMA Survey with the results from a general population survey of Australian citizens that was collected in 2007 (Murphy, Murphy & Mearns 2010). Importantly, it can be seen that Muslim Australians are committed to policing and what policing stands for. However, they are much more likely to be resistant or disengaged from police than people in the general Australian population. This is perhaps understandable given the degree to which respondents felt counter-terrorism laws unfairly target Muslims (see below and the focus groups results) and the concern voiced by the Muslim community about the introduction of particular counter-terrorism laws (ABC 2014; Australian National Imams Council 2014a, 2014b).

  41

Figure 4. Comparison of postures adopted by BMA Survey respondents and a sample from the general population 5.4: POLICING OF TERRORISM Section 4 of the BMA Survey aimed to explore how Muslims in Australia see the policing of counter-terrorism. The survey items in this section of the survey asked respondents about: (a) their trust in police regarding counter-terrorism; (b) whether counter terrorism policing was done in a procedurally just manner when police deal with members of the Muslim community; (c) how Muslims viewed the legitimacy of the laws surrounding counter-terrorism; (d) their willingness to cooperate with police in crime control and in their efforts to combat terrorism; (e) their willingness to report intelligence to police regarding terrorist activity in their community; (f) how they felt about counter-terrorism initiatives targeting Muslim communities; (g) how they felt counter-terrorism had changed their behaviour in public; (h) their views on terrorism and the meaning of Jihad, and whether they felt terrorists sometimes have valid grievances; and (i) their views on Australian policy in the Middle East. Trust in police to effectively police terrorism As noted in Section 3 of the survey, we collected information about how Muslim Australians trusted police in general. Section 4 of the survey also asked about their trust and confidence in police to deal with terrorism and whether this could be done in a way that did not damage relations with the Muslim community. A seven item trust scale was developed (e.g., ‘You trust police to make decisions that are good for everyone when they are investigating and prosecuting terrorism’). We found, overall, that Muslims did trust police to deal with terrorism (Mean=3.83; SD=0.78), but their trust of police regarding counter-terrorism was much lower than their general trust in police (Mean=4.21; SD=0.66). The difference between these mean scores on trust were statistically significant, t(799)=14.85, p<0.001. For a visual depiction of this pattern see Figure 5 below.

0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  100  

%  

Motivational  postures  

BMA  Sample  

General  population  sample  

  42

Procedural justice policing in counter-terrorism Section 4 of the BMA Survey also asked respondents about their perceptions of the police using procedural justice in counter-terrorism policing. A series of 10 questions assessed the level of respect Muslims received from police in counter-terrorism, how neutral police were in their dealings with the Muslim community, how trustworthy their motives were, and whether they provided Muslims with a chance to express their views before decisions were made with respect to counter-terrorism. On average, Muslims felt police were generally procedurally just in this area (Mean=3.93; SD=0.74). Muslims’ perceptions of procedural justice in counter terrorism policing activities were the same as they were for non-counter-terrorism activities (Mean=3.93; SD=0.67). For a visual comparison see Figure 5.

Figure 5. Mean scores on trust in police and procedural justice for counter terrorism policing and for policing in general As noted earlier, ‘voice’ is an important component of procedural justice. People value having the opportunity to voice concerns and issues with authorities. If an authority then takes these concerns into account then people will be left feeling that they have received procedural justice. This is important in the counter-terrorism space because procedural justice is key to promoting people’s willingness to cooperate with authorities (Cherney & Murphy 2013; Huq et al 2011a, 2011b; Tyler 2012). Giving an individual real voice, however, requires that an authority genuinely commits to acting on any valid concerns that may be raised. Ignoring concerns or opinions regarding an important issue, such as how Muslim communities should be policed with respect to counter-terrorism is unlikely to foster a sense that the authority has used procedural justice; this risks resulting in increased defiance toward police and an unwillingness to cooperate with them in combatting terrorism or radicalisation. The BMA Survey asked respondents two questions about how much they felt police considered their views when making decisions about how to address terrorism, and when trying to deal with radicalisation in their community. We found that police scored very low on this indicator of voice. On average, Muslims felt police rarely considered their views on this matter (Mean=2.62; SD=0.75). In fact, about 46% of the sample felt police ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ considered their views when trying to deal with radicalisation in their community.

2  

2.5  

3  

3.5  

4  

4.5  

5  

Counter  terrorism  policing  

General  policing  

Mean  score  

Trust  

Procedural  justice  

  43

Legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws What if laws are seen to be inconsistent with what an individual sees as right and just? This might lead to a situation where a person feels justified in breaking the law or when deciding not to cooperate with authorities. In the context of counter-terrorism this is likely to be particularly salient to people who feel that laws unfairly target their community. While they might believe that terrorism is wrong, they can still judge the laws that are put in place to combat terrorism as overly intrusive or punitive (for example see the Australian National Imams Council 2014a, 2014b). There has been much said in the media recently about how Muslims feel that counter- terrorism laws are used disproportionately against Muslims and that they unfairly target their community (ABC 2014; The Australian Newspaper 2014; see also focus group results in Chapter 3). Given these claims, we sought to test these feelings empirically in the BMA Survey. Respondents were presented with six survey items (e.g., ‘I question the fairness of some of Australia’s counter terrorism laws’; ‘Counter terrorism laws unfairly target Muslims’). We found some support for these media reports; Muslims in Australia seem to be quite ambivalent about the legitimacy of Australia’s counter terrorism laws. The average score on this four-item scale fell right on the mid-point of the scale, suggesting that Muslims were neither strongly opposed nor strongly in support of Australia’s counter terrorism laws (Mean=3.00; SD=0.83). It is interesting to see, however, that the standard deviation on this scale was quite high, suggesting a lot of variability in how respondents answered these set of questions. With respect to the single item (‘Counter terrorism laws unfairly target Muslims’), there was an overwhelming view that laws did unfairly target Muslims; three quarters (74.1%) of the sample expressed this view by selecting the ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ answer category. Only 6.4% of the sample did not feel the laws targeted Muslims. Two additional survey items assessed the perceived moral alignment between people’s views about right and wrong, and the law’s perspective on right and wrong with respect to counter-terrorism (e.g., ‘Counter terrorism laws are usually consistent with the values of people in my community about what is right and wrong’). Muslims generally agreed that counter-terrorism laws aligned with what they felt was right (Mean=4.07; SD=0.78). So while people may have questioned the legitimacy of some of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws, their response to the moral alignment scale suggests they agree with the law that terrorism is wrong. Cooperation with police There is a strong link in the literature between people’s willingness to cooperate with authorities, and their views on the legitimacy of that authority and its laws. The BMA Survey was interested in examining how willing Muslims in Australia would be to work closely with police to deal with (a) crime in their community, and (b) to deal with the threat of terrorism. Cherney and Murphy (2013) recently found that Muslims in Australia who questioned the legitimacy of laws were much more likely to cooperate with police when they viewed police using procedural justice when engaging their community. Four survey items were measured to assess Muslims’ willingness to cooperate with police in general crime control; three questions were measured to assess willingness to work with police to encourage other members of their community to tackle terrorism; and seven questions asked about their own willingness to report suspicious terrorist related information to police (see Chapter 6

  44

and Appendix 2 for more detail). Respondents were asked to reply to these questions on a 5-point ‘very unlikely’ to ‘very likely’ scale. As can be seen in Figure 6 below, the majority of respondents indicated they would work with police across all three areas, although willingness to report suspicious terrorist related information to police was slightly lower. Mean scores for each are 4.20 (SD=0.58), 4.15 (SD=0.80), and 3.96 (SD=0.84), respectively.

Figure 6. Willingness to cooperate with police across three different issues ‘Siege mentality’ As indicated in the focus group results, the focus on Muslims in relation to counter-terrorism left many Muslims feeling ‘under siege’. They reported being scrutinised heavily by both police and the public and that they felt people often viewed them as potential terrorists because of their faith. In order to explore this feeling of ‘siege’ in the BMA Survey, respondents were presented with a series of seven statements assessing the level of scrutiny they experience (e.g., ‘I feel at risk of being accused of terrorist activities because of my faith’). On average, Muslims felt under pressure, with many reporting they felt subjected to enhanced scrutiny by police and the public (Mean = 3.52; SD=0.91). Again, however, the standard deviation on this scale was somewhat high suggesting a lot of variability in how respondents answered this set of questions. For 75% of the sample they felt a lot of scrutiny; for the remainder of the sample, they did not. BMA Survey respondents were also asked about the extent to which they had changed certain practices as a result of police scrutiny around terrorism. These practices included: (a) attendance at mosque; (b) how they dress in public; (c) their everyday activities; and (d) their travel behaviour. The results for those who responded ‘somewhat’, ‘mostly’, and ‘a great deal’ to these practices are presented in Figure 7 below. It can be seen that the way in which people dressed had received the most impact (50% of the sample reported changing the way they dress in public). Calls in Australia to ‘ban the Burqua’ have likely contributed to Muslims’ feelings of self-consciousness about the way they dress in public.

2  

2.5  

3  

3.5  

4  

4.5  

5  

crime  cooperation   work  with  others  in  Muslim  community  

report  terrorist  activity  

Mean  score  

Cooperation  

  45

Figure 7. Percentage of the BMA Survey sample that indicated their behaviour regarding these activities has changed due to police scrutiny around terrorism Views on terrorism, terrorists, Jihad, and Australian government policy The final few sections in the BMA Survey sought to address how Muslims in Australia view terrorism, terrorists, and Jihad, and what they also thought about Australia’s decision to align itself with the US with respect to military force in Afghanistan and Iraq. One reason for this was to examine whether beliefs about terrorism, Jihad or foreign policy had an influence on particular attitudes. Interestingly, 20.3% of the sample (or 162 respondents) claimed that terrorists sometimes have valid grievances. Importantly, this was unrelated to a respondent’s age (r=-0.04). Having reported this finding, it does not mean that the respondents also viewed terrorism as justified, but it does raise a question about how some Muslims in society feel about the justifications that terrorists often use to explain their actions. It should be noted that the average score on this one item was low (Mean=2.32; SD=1.21), indicating the majority of the sample did not share this view. In fact, the majority of respondents (87.6%) stated that terrorist groups distort the true meaning of Islam. Further, as was presented earlier most respondents agreed that counter-terrorism laws aligned with their views about what was right. This provides further support that terrorism itself was seen as unjustified in our sample. It appears that it may be the way in which counter-terrorism laws are enacted and used with Muslim communities that results in feelings of being unfairly targeted by police. As indicated in Chapter 3, Jihad (literally meaning striving or exerting oneself) as outlined in the Koran has a number of dimensions. It can refer to a violent or non-violent struggle, with its violent militarized dimension (known as a lesser jihad) typically associated with suicide bombings and terrorist attacks. However it also refers to a personnel struggle (referred to as higher jihad), which emphasizes efforts to control and subdue one’s ego and lusts, which is understood as reflecting a spiritual struggle (Ariev, Lukito & Taylor 2011; Cook 2005). Sixty percent (59.7%) of the sample rejected the premise that Jihad supports the use of violence as a means to an end. The majority of respondents also disagreed that Jihad was a militarised struggle

0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  100  

mosque  attendance  

dress   everyday  activity   travel  

%  

Behaviour  change  

  46

that can be conducted by individuals (92.4%). Only 24.8% of the sample disagreed that Jihad was a personnel struggle for righteousness. Finally, the majority of respondents (>80%) felt that Australia should not have aligned with the US with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. For about 36% of the respondents, the War on Terror was seen as a war on Islam. 5.5: BI-VARIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN KEY VARIABLES The previous sections of this report presented some of the basic descriptive findings obtained in the BMA Survey. This section presents some interesting bi-variate relationships between some of the key variables and scales measured in the BMA Survey. Terrorists sometimes have valid grievances We were particularly intrigued by the finding that 20% of the sample believed that terrorists sometimes have valid grievances. We sought to examine what variables may be related to this view. We found that those who held strong views about the ‘War on Terror’ being a war on Islam were much more likely to indicate that terrorists sometimes had valid grievances; the relationship between these two variables was very high (r=0.68, p<0.001). Those who felt terrorists sometimes had valid grievances were also less likely to report that terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda distorted the true meaning of Islam (r=-0.35, p<0.001). Interestingly, however, those who felt terrorists sometimes had valid grievances were no more likely to think that Australia’s decision to align itself with the USA with respect to military force in Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong than those who did not feel the same way (r=-0.07, p>0.05; and r=-0.01, p>0.05, respectively). Those who felt terrorists sometimes have valid grievances, however, also strongly held the view that Jihad was a concept that supports the use of violence (r=0.73, p<0.001). Those with stronger views about terrorists having valid grievances were also much less likely to view Australia’s counter-terrorism laws as legitimate (r=-0.59, p<0.001); in other words, they questioned the legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws indicating they did not trust them and felt they unfairly targeted Muslims. Those who reported a higher degree of a siege mentality were also more likely to think terrorists have valid grievances (r=0.32, p<0.001). Taken together, such findings suggest that Muslim’s who feel their faith is under attack by authorities, the public or by foreign policies or actions, are more likely to empathise with terrorists (although it does not mean they support the use of violence by terrorists). Table 5.1 presents these relationships.

  47

Table 5.1. Bi-variate correlations between key variables of interest and Muslims’ view that terrorists sometimes have valid grievances Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Valid grievance 1

2. War on Islam .68 1

3. Afghanistan -.07 -.08* 1

4. Iraq -.01 .06 .76* 1

5. Jihad supports violence

.73* .68* -.13* -.00 1

6. Jihad a personal struggle for righteousness

-.20* -.08* .11* .09* -.30* 1

7. Terrorist groups distort Islam

-.35* -.30* -.07* -.10* -.25* .01 1

8. Law legitimacy -.59* -.60* .13* .05 -.60* .18* .29* 1

9. Siege mentality .32* .25* -.08* -.05 .30* -.07 -.13* - .43* 1

*Significant relationship at p<0.05. Finally, respondents who identified weakly with Australia were also more likely to express views that terrorists have valid grievances (r=-0.40, p<0.001). Muslim identity was only a very weak predictor of the view that terrorists have valid grievances (r=0.10, p<0.01). These findings suggest that the Australian government and religious leaders need to do much more to enhance the Muslim community’s sense of identification with Australia. Promoting willingness to cooperate with police Table 5.2 below presents a number of bi-variate correlations between key variables of interest. One of the main objectives of our study is to identify how Muslim community cooperation in counter-terrorism can be enhanced. The results from the bi-variate relationships presented in Table 5.2 suggest that Muslims will be more likely to cooperate with police to combat terrorism if they trust police, if they view police as treating Muslims with procedural justice when investigating terrorism, and if they view counter-terrorism laws to be legitimate. Importantly, strong identification with the Muslim faith was unrelated to respondents’ willingness to report crime or terrorism related information to police. It was Australian identity that seemed to be important here. Those who identified more strongly with Australia were more likely to report information to police (crime and terrorist related information). So it does not appear to be identification with one’s faith that is a predictor of uncooperative behaviour, but rather the lack of identification with Australia that seems to be important in influencing a willingness to cooperate with police. It can also be seen from Table 5.2 that Muslims were less likely to feel ‘under siege’ if they trusted police and if they felt police use procedural justice when dealing with members of their community. The greater the feeling of being under siege, the less willing Muslims were to engage with police to report crime and terrorist related information.

  48

Overall, these relationships suggest that the key to promoting cooperation with police is through building trust. Trust was also very strongly related to perceptions of procedural justice. If police are seen to be using procedural justice when dealing with the Muslim community (i.e., treat them with respect, are neutral in the way they deal with the Muslim community, are seen to care about the well-being of Muslims, and provide Muslims with a voice about how their community should be policed) then police will be able to more effectively win the hearts and minds of Muslim communities in Australia. Our results suggest that this will in turn foster a greater willingness on the part of Muslims to be willing to work with police to combat terrorism and radicalisation in Australia. Table 5.2. Bi-variate correlations between key variables of interest and Muslims’ willingness to cooperate with police Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Muslim identity 1

2. Australian identity .07 1

3. Procedural justice# -.10* .48* 1

4. Trust in police# -.13* .47* .82* 1

5. Legitimacy of laws# -.11* .46* .71* .75* 1

6. Siege mentality .04 -.24* -.34* -.35* -.43* 1

7. Cooperation in crime control

.05 .27* .56* .57* .46* -.23* 1

8. Educating others in community about threat of terrorism

-.01 .40* .66* .67* .57* -.27* .70*

1

9. Report terrorist info -.07 .42* .73* .74* .66* -.35* .55*

.66*

1

*p<0.01: significant relationship; # these three scales pertain to procedural justice, trust and law legitimacy with respect to terrorism (see Chapter 6 and results above for a description of these measures). 5.6: ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN VIEWS ACROSS THE THREE STATES? We surveyed Muslims living in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. Government agencies, as well as police agencies, are working to solidify stronger relationships with the Muslim community. Given we have data from three different states, we were interested in examining whether Muslims’ views on a few key variables differed significantly between the three States. Table 5.3 below presents these findings. It can be seen from Table 5.3 that Muslim respondents across the three states did not differ in their degree of identification with Australia, in their levels of disengagement, in their general levels of trust in police, and in their views about police using procedural justice when dealing with the public. In general, Sydney-based Muslims had the least favourable views across the variables presented in Table 5.3 when compared to

  49

residents of the other two states. Queensland Muslims in general were more favourable of police in their state and how police handled terrorism related issues, although there were no significant differences in the views of Queensland Muslims when compared to Victorian Muslims. There were, however, a number of differences between those living in Sydney, NSW when compared to Muslims in the other two states. Sydney Muslims were significantly more likely to feel under siege, they were less trusting of counter-terrorism policing, and they were significantly more likely to believe terrorists have valid grievances when compared to Muslims living in Brisbane or Melbourne. Sydney Muslims were also significantly more likely to question the legitimacy of counter terrorism laws. Sydney residents were also significantly less likely than Muslims living in Melbourne or Brisbane to want to cooperate with police in the task of collaborative crime control or in reporting terrorist related activity to police. It should be noted, however, that in general, most Muslims reported a very strong willingness to want to cooperate with police in crime control (even Sydney-based Muslims). Of some concern is the finding that Sydney residents were less willing to report terror related activity to police (an average score of 3.79 out of 5 was reported for Sydney Muslims). These findings suggest that police can do more to work with the Muslim community in Sydney to build trust and a willingness to work with police in countering terrorism. Table 5.3. Mean differences in views between State of Residence (QLD, NSW, VIC). Figures in brackets are standard deviations. Variable Brisbane

(QLD) N=200

Melbourne (VIC) N=300

Sydney (NSW) N=300

Australian identity 3.89 (.83) 3.81 (.87) 3.83 (.81)

Disengagement# 2.32 (.55) 2.29 (.62) 2.35 (.61)

Siege Mentality# 3.43 (.91) 3.36 (.95) 3.75 (.83)ab

Terrorists have valid grievances# 2.03 (.97) 2.17 (1.15) 2.55 (1.35)ab

Legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws

3.20 (.77) 3.10 (.81) 2.77 (.84)ab

General trust in police 4.27 (.63) 4.21 (.70) 4.16 (.63)

Trust in counter-terrorism policing

4.02 (.70) 3.88 (.81) 3.65 (.78)ab

Police generally use procedural justice with public

4.03 (.59) 3.96 (.69) 3.84 (.69)

Counter-terrorism police use procedural justice

4.05 (.67) 3.93 (.78) 3.83 (.73)ab

Given ‘voice’ in counter-terrorism 2.52 (.68) 2.62 (.73) 2.69 (.81)a

Cooperation in crime 4.27 (.52) 4.29 (.51) 4.08 (.66)ab

Cooperation in counter-terrorism policing

4.25 (.77) 4.19 (.80) 4.04 (.83)a

Report terrorist activity 4.10 (.66) 4.02 (.82) 3.79 (.94)ab a is significantly different from Brisbane at p<0.05; b is significantly different from Melbourne at p<0.05. All scores are recorded on a 1 to 5 scale; higher scores indicate more favourable evaluations; # higher scores on these three items indicate less favourable evaluations

  50

6: SURVEY SCALES

The Being Muslim in Australia (BMA) Survey consisted of a number of items designed to measure attributes of interest such as identity, feelings of acceptance, trust in police, police legitimacy, procedural justice, and motivational postures, to name just a few. It also included a range of questions designed to measure respondents’ demographic and background variables, and respondent’s self-reported willingness to cooperate with police. In total, the questionnaire contained 131 questions (see Appendix 2 of this report for specific questions). Many of the concepts mentioned in the preceding paragraph were presented in Chapter 5 of this report and were measured using multiple questions. This chapter (Chapter 6) provides a breakdown of the individual items used to assess each scale. Items that were reverse scored are denoted with an asterix (*). The Cronbach alpha scores for each scale are also included to indicate the reliability of the multi-item scale being assessed. Alpha scores lower than 0.50 are generally considered to show a weak scale, while those between 0.60 and 0.80 are considered to be acceptable, and those greater than 0.80 are considered extremely strong and reliable scales. PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND No scales measured in this section (see Appendix 1 and 2) 6.1: MUSLIMS’ PLACE IN AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY Australian identity Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater sense of identification with Australia (Mean=3.83; SD=0.84). Scale adapted from the work of Haslam (2004), and Murphy, Murphy and Mearns (2010). The following questions ask you about how you identify and see yourself within Australia

• I am proud to be an Australian. • I identify strongly with being Australian. • Being an Australian is important to the way I think of myself as a person. • I see myself as an Australian first and a Muslim second.

Muslim identity Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84; scores on a 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater sense of identification with the Muslim faith (Mean=4.44; SD=0.54). Scale adapted from the work of Haslam (2004), and Murphy et al. (2010). The following questions ask you about how you identify with being Muslim

• I am proud to be Muslim. • What Islam stands for is important to me. • Being a Muslim is important to the way I think of myself as a person. • I see myself as a Muslim first and an Australian second.

  51

Respect from Australians Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater perception that Australians respect Muslims (Mean=3.63; SD=0.93). Scale developed by the authors. Do you think that the majority of Australians…..

• Respect how you live your life. • Respect what you contribute to Australia. • Respect what you believe.

6.2: POLICING When answering the questions in this section of the BMA Survey, respondents were asked to think about how they were policed in their community. By community, we asked respondents to think about the Muslim community in their city or neighbourhood. Police Legitimacy Police legitimacy was measured via a number of subscales: a) trust and confidence in police; b) obligation to obey police; c) moral alignment; and d) police legality. These scales were taken and adapted from Tyler (1990), Jackson et al. (2012), and Murphy et al. (2010). Trust and confidence in police Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates higher trust and confidence in police (Mean=4.21; SD=0.66). Items were taken and adapted from Murphy et al. (2010).

• I trust police in my community. • I have confidence in the police in my community. • Police are accessible to the people in my community.

Obligation to obey police Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly feeling of obligation to obey police (Mean=4.08; SD=0.56). Items were taken and adapted from Tyler (1990) and Murphy et al. (2010).

• People should do what the police tell them to do even if they disagree with their decisions.

• I feel a moral obligation to obey police. • Overall, I obey police with good will. • Police are legitimate authorities entitled to be obeyed. • It is our duty to obey police officers even when we do not like the way they

treat us. • There are times when it is OK for you to ignore what police tell you to do*.

Moral alignment Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater sense that police share the same values about right and wrong with the public (Mean=3.95; SD=0.71). Items were taken and

  52

adapted from Jackson et al. (2012). • The way the police act in my community is usually consistent with the values

of people in my community about what is right and wrong. • The police share the same values of ordinary citizens like me. • My own feelings about what is right and wrong usually agree with police rules

and policies. Police legality Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A lower score on this scale indicates a greater sense that police act appropriately (Mean=2.22; SD=0.88). Items were taken and adapted from Jackson et al. (2012).

• I have personally been subjected to discriminatory treatment by a police officer.

• I know of or have heard about someone in my community being discriminated against by a police officer.

• The police sometimes give people from specific ethnic backgrounds less help than they give others.

• Police are sometimes more likely to detain people from a Muslim background than people from other backgrounds.

Procedural justice Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater perception that police use procedural justice when dealing with the Muslim community (Mean=3.93; SD=0.67). Items were taken and adapted from Tyler (1990), and Murphy et al. (2010).

• Police treat people fairly. • Police treat people with dignity and respect. • Police make their decisions based upon facts, not their personal opinions. • Police give people a chance to express their views before making decisions.

Distributive justice Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater perception that police are distributively just (Mean=3.75; SD=1.08). Items were taken and adapted from Murphy et al. (2010).

• The police sometimes give people from specific ethnic backgrounds less help than they give others*.

• Police are sometimes more likely to detain people from a Muslim background than people from other backgrounds*.

Police effectiveness Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater perception that police are effectively dealing with crime and problems in the community (Mean=4.19; SD=0.68). Items were taken and adapted from Tyler (1990), and Murphy et al. (2010). Police in your community are doing a good job at…..

• Dealing with problems that concern you. • Preventing crime. • Keeping order. • Solving crime.

  53

Dull compulsion Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater perception that police are effectively dealing with crime and problems in the community (Mean=4.15; SD=0.58). Items were developed by the authors.

• I often obey police because I fear the repercussion of doing otherwise. • One should obey police because one has no other choice. • If one does not obey police, the outcome will not be good. • It is better to obey police than argue with them

Motivational postures Three different motivational postures toward the police were measured in the BMA Survey: a) commitment; b) resistance; and c) disengagement. The latter two postures were indicators of defiance toward police. Higher scores indicate greater commitment, resistance and disengagement, respectively. Items were taken and adapted from Braithwaite (2003). Commitment Cronbach’s alpha = 0.62; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater level of commitment (Mean=4.10; SD=0.58).

• People should do what the police tell them to do even if they disagree with their decisions.

• I feel a moral obligation to obey police. • Overall, I obey police with good will.

Resistance Cronbach’s alpha = 0.62; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater level of resistance toward police (Mean=3.10; SD=0.62).

• It is important not to let police push you around. • If you don’t cooperate with police, they will get tough with you. • Once the police think of you as a trouble-maker they will never change their

mind. • As a society we need more people willing to take a stand against police. • If the police get tough with me, I will not cooperate with them.

Disengagement Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater level of resistance toward police (Mean=2.32; SD=0.60).

• I don’t care if I am not doing the right thing by police. • I personally don’t think that there is much the police can do to me to make me

obey the law if I don’t want to. • I don’t really know what the police expect of me and I’m not about to ask. • If I find out that I am not doing what the police want, I’m not going to lose

any sleep over it.

  54

6.3: POLICING OF TERRORISM Trust in police to handle terrorism Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates greater trust and confidence in police in their efforts to fight terrorism (Mean=3.83; SD=0.78). Items were developed by the authors.

• You trust police to make decisions that are good for everyone when they are investigating and prosecuting terrorism.

• People’s rights are generally well protected by police when they are investigating and prosecuting terrorism.

• You have confidence in police to effectively deal with terrorism. • You have confidence in police when they investigate and prosecute terrorism • When the police fight terrorism they gain respect. • Policing terrorism negatively affects police-citizen relations*. • Police activities in fighting terrorism impair their relationships with Muslim

communities in Australia*. Procedural justice policing in counter-terrorism Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates greater perceptions of procedural justice being used by police when dealing with Muslims regarding counter-terrorism (Mean=3.93; SD=0.74). Items were taken and adapted from Tyler, Schulhofer and Huq (2010). When dealing with people in your community concerning issues of terrorism, the police…..

• Give people a chance to express their views before making decisions. • Make their decisions based upon facts, not their personal opinions. • Apply the law consistently to everyone, regardless of who they are. • Consider people’s views when deciding what to do. • Take account of the needs and concerns of the people they deal with. • Respect people’s rights. • Treat people with dignity and respect. • Treat people fairly. • Try to be fair when making decisions. • Are polite when dealing with people.

Voice Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88; scores on a 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=occasionally, 4=often, 5= always scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a perception that police consider Muslims’ views when deciding how to deal with terrorism and radicalisation in their community (Mean=2.62; SD=0.75). Items were developed by the authors. How much do police consider the community’s views…….

• When making decisions about how to address terrorism. • When trying to deal with radicalisation in your community.

  55

Legitimacy of Counter terrorism laws Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates greater confidence that Australia’s counter terrorism laws are legitimate (Mean=3.00; SD=0.83). Items were developed by the authors.

• I question the fairness of some of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws*. • I have confidence in Australia’s counter-terrorism laws. • I question the legitimacy of Australia’s counter terrorism laws*. • Counter terrorism laws unfairly target Muslims*.

Moral alignment with counter terrorism laws Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates greater moral alignment between Muslim Australians and the objectives of Australia’s counter terrorism laws (Mean=4.07; SD=0.78). Items were developed by the authors.

• My own feelings about right and wrong generally align with the objectives of Australia’s counter terrorism laws.

• Counter terrorism laws are usually consistent with the values of people in my community about what is right and wrong.

Willingness to cooperate with police Three different cooperation scales were presented in the BMA Survey: a) willingness to cooperate with police in combatting crime in one’s community; b) willingness to cooperate with police to educate members of one’s community against the threat of terrorism; and c) willingness to report terrorism related information to police. All cooperation measures are self-reported willingness to cooperate; they do not assess whether respondents would actually cooperate if the situation arose. All items were taken and adapted from Tyler et al. (2010), or Murphy et al. (2010). Cooperation in crime control Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84; scores on a 1=very unlikely, 2=unlikely, 3=maybe, 4=likely, and 5=very likely scale. A higher score on this scale indicates greater willingness to cooperate with police (Mean=4.20; SD=0.58). If the situation arose, how likely would you be to……

• Call the police to report a crime. • Help police find someone suspected of committing a crime by providing them

with information. • Report dangerous or suspicious activities to police. • Willingly assist police if asked.

Educating members of the community against threat of terrorism Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92; scores on a 1=very unlikely to 5=very likely scale. A higher score on this scale indicates greater willingness to work with police to educate members in their community about the threats of terrorism (Mean=4.15; SD=0.80). If the situation arose, how likely would you be to……

• Work with police to educate people in your community about the dangers of terrorism and terrorists.

• Encourage members of your community to generally cooperate with police efforts to fight terrorism.

  56

• Attend a community forum held at your local Mosque to discuss with police how terrorism can be prevented.

Report terrorism related information Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96; scores on a 1=very unlikely to 5=very likely scale. A higher score on this scale indicates greater willingness to report terrorism related information to police (Mean=3.96; SD=0.84). If you saw or heard about the following, how likely would you be to report it to police.

• A person saying he or she had joined a group you consider politically radical. • A person overheard discussing their decision to help plant explosives in a

terrorist attack. • A person visiting Internet chat rooms or websites in which there is material

posted that supports al-Qaeda. • A person reading religious literature you believe to be extremist. • A person giving money to organisations that people say are associated with

terrorists. • A person talking about traveling overseas to fight for Muslims. • A person distributing material expressing support for al-Qaeda.

Siege Mentality Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater feeling of being under siege (Mean=3.52; SD=0.91). Items developed by the authors.

• I feel at risk of being accused of terrorist activities because of my faith. • Others in my community feel at risk of being accused of terrorism because of

their faith. • I feel under more scrutiny by police and authorities because of my faith. • I feel under more scrutiny by the media and the public because of my faith. • The War on Terror disproportionately targets Muslims. • I sometimes feel police view me as a potential terrorist because of my faith. • I sometimes feel the Australian public views me as a potential terrorist

because of my faith. Change in behaviour Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. Higher scores on this scale indicate a greater propensity to change behaviour due to increased police scrutiny (Mean=2.34; SD=0.80). Items developed by authors. To what extent have you changed the following practices as a result of police scrutiny around terrorism……

• Attendance at group prayers in a mosque. • How you dress in public. • Your everyday activities. • Your travel behaviour.

Views about Australia’s foreign policy Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86; scores on a 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree scale. Higher scores on this scale indicate stronger agreement with Australia’s foreign policies in Iraq and Afghanistan (Mean=1.92; SD=0.75). Items developed by authors.

  57

• Australia made the right decision to align itself with the US with respect to military force in Afghanistan.

• Australia made the right decision to align itself with the US with respect to military force in Iraq.

6.4: DESCRIPTION OF CODEBOOK As noted earlier, this report also includes a codebook of the findings from the BMA Survey. The codebook is presented in Appendix 2. The codebook presents the reader with all of the questions used in the survey, as well as detailing the breakdown of responses to each of these questions. For example, the number of respondents answering each question is provided, along with the way in which they responded to each question (e.g., how many circled the ‘strongly disagree’ option, how many circled the ‘strongly agree’ option, and so on), and the number of respondents who refused to answer a specific question. Also presented are the means and standard deviations for every question presented in the survey, as well as a proportion of the missing values for each question.

  58

REFERENCES ABC (2014a). Islamic spokesman says Muslim community feels targeted. ABC News

on-line: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-19/islamic-spokesman-says-muslim-community-feels/5757414 (accessed 19 September 2014).

ABC (2014b). Anti-terror operation in Sydney and Brisbane 'thwarted' beheading plot. ABC News on-line: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-18/anti-terror-police-mount-large-scale-raids-in-sydney-brisbane/5752002 (accessed 19 September 2014).

Aly, A. (2007). Australian Muslim Responses to the Discourse on Terrorism in the Australian Popular Media. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 42(1), 27-40.

Aly, A. (2013). The policy response to home-grown terrorism: reconceptualising Prevent and Resilience as collective resistance. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 8 (1), 2-18.

Aly, A. & Balnaves, M. (2008). They want us to be Afraid: Developing a metric for the fear of terrorism. The International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 6 (6), 113-122.

Argomaniz, J. & Vidal-Diez, A. (2015). Examining Deterrence and Backlash Effects in Counter-Terrorism: The Case of ETA. Terrorism and Political Violence, 27 (1).

Aston, H. (2014). Dozens of anti-Muslim attacks as Islamic leaders warn of community fear. Sydney Morning Herald, October 10, 2014.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). 2006 Census of Population and Housing (Report 2914.0). Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/2914.02006

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014). 2011 Census of Population and Housing. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features752012-2013

Australian Criminal Code Amendment (Suppression of Terrorist Bombings) Act, No. 58 (2002).

Australian Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism) Act, No. 40 (2003). Australian National Imams Council (2014a). ANIC concerned about proposed anti-

terror laws. Australian National Imams Council press release, August 29, 2014.

Australian National Imams Council (2014b). ANIC concerned about proposed foreign fighters bill. Australian National Imams Council press release, October 14, 2014.

Ariev, H., Lukito, R. & Taylor, C.H. (2011). The illusion of the Islamic State: How an Alliance of Moderates Launched a Successful Jihad Against Radicalization and Terrorism in the Worlds Largest Muslim-Majority Country. LibForall Foundation, First English Edition.

Bar-Tal, D. & Antebi, D. (1992). Beliefs about negative intentions of the world: A study of the Israeli siege mentality. Political Psychology, 13 (4), 633-645.

Bartlett, J. & Miller, C. (2010). The power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism. Demos, London.

Blackwood, L. Hopkins, N. & Reicher, S. (2013a). I know who I am, but who do they think I am? A study of encounters between Muslims and authorities at the airport. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36 (6), 1090–1108.

Blackwood, L., Hopkins, N. & Reicher, S. (2013b). Turning the analytic gaze on

  59

“us”: The role of authorities in the alienation of minorities. European Psychologist, 18 (4), 245-252.

Bradford, B., Jackson, J. & Stanko, E. (2009). Contact and confidence: Revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing and Society, 19 (1), 20-46.

Braithwaite, V. (Ed.) (2003). Taxing Democracy: Understanding Tax Avoidance and Evasion. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Braithwaite, V. (2009). Defiance in Taxation and Governance: Resisting and Dismissing Authority in a Democracy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Breen-Smyth, M. (2014). Theorising the “suspect community”: counterterrorism, security practices and the public imagination. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 7 (2), 223-240.

Byman, D. (2001). A high price: The triumphs and failures of Israeli counter-terrorism. Oxford University Press.

Cherney, A. & Murphy, K. (2011) Understanding the contingency of procedural justice outcomes. Policing, 5 (3), 228-235.

Cherney, A. & Murphy, K. (2013). Policing terrorism with procedural justice: The role of police legitimacy and law legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 46 (3), 403-421.

Cherney, A. & Murphy, K. (2015). Being a "Suspect Community" in a post 911 world: The impact of the war on terror on Muslim communities in Australia. Paper under review.

Cook, D. (2005). Understanding Jihad. University of California Press, CA. DPMC (2010). Counter –Terrorism White Paper: Securing Australia – Protecting our

Community. Canberra: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Emmel, N., Hughes, K., Greenhalgh, J., & Sales, A. (2007). Accessing Socially

Excluded People—Trust and the Gatekeeper in the Researcher-Participant Relationship. Sociological Research Online, 12 (2).

Esposito, J.L. (2010). Islam: The straight path (4th edition). New York: Oxford University Press. Esposito, J.L. (2011). What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 2nd Edition, Oxford: University Press. George, A.L. & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1990). The Discovery of Grounded Theory, New York: Aldine. Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing, 4 (4), 403-410. Grossman, M. (2014). Disenchantments: counterterror narratives and conviviality.

Critical Studies on Terrorism, (ahead-of-print http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2014.937097).

Haslem, S.A. (2004). Psychology in Organizations: The social identity approach. Sage.

Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public Satisfaction with Police: Using Procedural Justice to Improve Police Legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27-42.

Huq, A.Z., Tyler, T.R., & Schulhofer, S. (2011a). Mechanisms for eliciting cooperation in counterterrorism policing: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8 (4), 728-761.

  60

Huq, A.Z., Tyler, T.R., & Schulhofer, S. (2011b). Why does the public cooperate with law enforcement? The influence of the purposes and targets of policing. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 17 (3), 419–450.

Howard, R. & Sawyer, R. (2004). Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: Understanding the New Security Environment. Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.

Innes, M. (2006). Policing uncertainty: Countering terror through community intelligence and democratic policing. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605 (1), 222-241.

Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M. & Murray, K. (2012). Compliance with the law and policing by consent: Notes on police and legal legitimacy. In A. Crawford & A. Hucklesby (eds), Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice. London: Routledge.

Jackson, R. (2007). Constructing enemies: ‘Islamic terrorism’ in political and academic discourse. Government and Opposition, 42 (3), 394-426.

Jamil, U. & Rousseau, C. (2011). Challenging the ‘official’ story of 9/11: Community narratives and conspiracy theories. Ethnicities, 11 (2), 245-261. Kundnani, A. (2014). The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror. Verso, London, NY. LaFree, G., Dugan, L. & Korte, R. (2009). The impact of British counter terrorist strategies on political violence in Northern Ireland: Comparing deterrence and backlash models. Criminology, 47, 17-45. Lambert, R.A. (2011) Countering Al-Qaeda in London: Police and Muslims in Partnerships. London: Hurst and Co. Mazerolle, L., Wickes, R., Cherney, A., Murphy, K., Sargeant, E., & Zahnow, R.

(2012). Community Variations in Crime: A Spatial and Ecometric Analysis Wave 3: Technical Report No. 1 Study Methods and Basic Statistics. Brisbane: Australian Research Council.

McDonald, L.Z. (2011). Securing identities, resisting terror: Muslim youth work in the UK and its implications for security. Religion, State and Society, 39 (2-3), 177-189. doi: 10.1080/09637494.2011.584712

Murphy, K. (2004). The role of trust in nurturing compliance: A study of accused tax avoiders. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 187-209.

Murphy, K. (2005). Regulating more effectively: The relationship between procedural justice, legitimacy and tax non-compliance. Journal of Law and Society, 32, 562-589.

Murphy, K. (2013). Policing at the margins: Fostering trust and cooperation among ethnic minority groups. Journal of Policing Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 8 (2), 184-199.

Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18, 138–157.

Murphy, K. & Cherney, A. (2011). Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice policing? The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 235-257.

Murphy, K. & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with the police in a diverse society. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 181-201.

Murphy, K., Cherney, A., Wickes, R., Mazerolle, L. & Sargeant, E. (2012). The Community Capacity Survey – Face-to-face ethnic minority interviews: Methodology and Preliminary Findings. ARC Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security. Brisbane: Griffith University.

  61

Murphy, K. Mazerolle, L. & Bennett, S. (2014). Promoting trust in police: Findings from a randomized experimental field trial of procedural justice policing. Policing & Society, 24 (4), 405-424.

Murphy, K., Murphy, B., & Mearns, M. (2010). ‘The 2007 public safety and security in Australia survey’: Survey methodology and preliminary findings. Alfred Deakin Research Institute Working Paper No. 16. Geelong, NSW: Deakin University.

Murphy, K., Tyler, T. R. & Curtis, A. (2009). Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law? Regulation & Governance, 3, 1-26. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01043.x

Mythen, G. (2012). ‘No one speaks for us’: security policy, suspected communities and the problem of voice. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 5 (3), 409-424.

Mythen, G. Walklate, S. & Khan, F. (2013). ‘Why Should We Have to Prove We’re Alright?’: Counter-terrorism, Risk and Partial Securities. Sociology, 47 (2), 383-398.

Neyroud, P. (2007). Policing terrorism. Policing, 1 (1), 5-8. Peek, L. (2011) Behind the backlash: Muslim Americans after 9/11. Temple

University Press. Philadelphia. Peek, L. & Fothergill, A. (2009). Using focus groups: lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qualitative Research, 9(1), 31-59. Pickering, S., McCulloch, J. & Wright-Neville, D. (2008). Counter Terrorism

Policing: Community, Cohesion and Security. New York: Springer. Pickering, S. & McCulloch, J. (2010). The Haneef case and counter-terrorism

policing in Australia. Policing and Society, 20 (1), 21-38. Porter, L.E. & Kebbell, M.R. (2011). Radicalization in Australia: Examining

Australia’s convicted terrorists. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18(2), 212-231. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2010.482953.

Ramirez, D. Quinlan, T. L, Malloy, S. P. & Shutt, T. (2013). Community partnerships thwart terrorism. In D.P. Silk, B. Spalek & M. O’Rawe (eds), Preventing ideological violence: Communities, police and case studies of success. Palgrave Macmillan, NY (pg 151-169).

Sargeant, E., Murphy, K. & Cherney, A. (2014). Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with police: Testing the dominance of the process based model. European Journal of Criminology, 11, 500-524.

Sentas, V. (2014). Traces of Terror: CT Law, Policing and Race. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Security Legislation Review Committee (2006). Report of the Security Legislation Review Committee. Commonwealth Attorney Generals Dept. Retrieved from: http://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/Counterterrorismlaw/Documents/Report%20of%20the%20Security%20Legislation%20Review%20Committee.pdf

Skogan, W.G. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing & Society, 16 (2), 99-126. Solomons, M. (2014). Islamic outreach group Ummah United says ASIO risks

radicalising young Muslims in need of mentors. ABC news online, available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-20/islamic-group-works-to-stop-young-

muslims-from-turning-radical/5209794. Spalek, B. (2011). ‘New terrorism’ and crime prevention initiatives involving Muslim

young people in the UK: Research and policy contexts. Religion, State and Society, 39(2-3), 191-207. doi: 10.1080/09637494.2011.577202.

Spalek, B. (2013). Terror crime prevention with communities. Bloomsbury Academic,

  62

London, NY. Sun, I.Y., Wu, Y. & Poteyeva, M. (2011). Arab Americans’ opinion on counter-

terrorism measures: The impact of race, ethnicity, and religion. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 34 (7), 540-555. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2011.578550

Sunshine, J. & Tyler, T.R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–547.

The Australian (2014). Muslim group says PM’s remarks ‘put us in the crosshairs’ of bigots. The Australian Newspaper, Australian Associated Press, August 19, 2014.

Tahiri, H. & Grossman, M. (2013). Community and Radicalisation: An Examination of Perceptions, Ideas, Beliefs and Solutions Throughout Australia. Melbourne: Victoria Police Counter- Terrorism Coordination Unit/Canberra: Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee.

Tankebe, J. (2009). Policing, procedural fairness and public behavior: a review and critique. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 11, 8-19.

Thacher, D. (2005). The local role in homeland security. Law & Society Review, 3 (3), 635-676.

Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Tyler, T.R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual

Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400. Tyler, T.R. (2012). Toughness vs. fairness: Police policies and practices for managing

the risk of terrorism. In C. Lum & L.W. Kennedy (eds.), Evidence-Based Counterterrorism Policy. New York: Springer Verlag.

Tyler, T.R. & Murphy, K. (2011). Procedural justice, police legitimacy and cooperation with police: A new paradigm for policing. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security Briefing Paper. Brisbane: Griffith University. May 2011.

Tyler, T.R., Schulhofer, S. & Huq, A.Z. (2010). Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counterterrorism policing: A study of Muslim Americans. Law and Society Review, 44, 365-402.

UK Terrorism Act, c.11 (2006). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/pdfs/ukpga_20060011_en.pdf

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107 –56. 115 Stat. 272 (2001). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf

Weine, S. (2015). Understanding Community Attitudes towards CVE. START Research Brief, The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

Yazbeck, H.Y. & Balz, M.J. (2008). Taming the Imams: European governments and Islamic preachers since 9/11. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 19 (2), 215-235.

  63

APPENDIX 1 Muslim surnames used to generate sample list across the cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane

1. Abad 2. Abbas 3. Abbasi 4. Abdalla 5. Abdallah 6. Abdella 7. Abdelnour 8. Abdelrahman 9. Abdi 10. Abdo 11. Abdoo 12. Abdou 13. Abdul 14. Abdulla 15. Abdullah 16. Abed 17. Abid 18. Abood 19. Aboud 20. Abraham 21. Abu 22. Adel 23. Afzal 24. Agha 25. Ahmad 26. Ahmadi 27. Ahmed 28. Ahsan 29. Akbar 30. Akbari 31. Akel 32. Akhtar 33. Akhter 34. Akram 35. Alam 36. Ali 37. Allam 38. Allee 39. Alli 40. Ally 41. Aly 42. Aman 43. Amara 44. Amber 45. Ameen 46. Amen 47. Amer 48. Amin 49. Amini 50. Amir 51. Amiri 52. Ammar 53. Ansari 54. Anwar 55. Arafat 56. Arif 57. Arshad 58. Asad 59. Ashraf 60. Aslam 61. Asmar 62. Assad 63. Assaf 64. Atallah 65. Attar 66. Awan 67. Aydin 68. Ayoob 69. Ayoub 70. Ayub 71. Azad 72. Azam 73. Azer 74. Azimi 75. Aziz 76. Azizi 77. Azzam 78. Azzi 79. Bacchus 80. Baccus 81. Bacho 82. Baddour 83. Badie 84. Badour 85. Bagheri 86. Bahri 87. Baig 88. Baksh 89. Baluch 90. Bangura 91. Barakat 92. Bari 93. Basa 94. Basha 95. Bashara 96. Basher 97. Bashir 98. Baten 99. Begum 100. Ben 101. Beshara 102. Bey 103. Beydoun 104. Bilal 105. Bina 106. Burki 107. Can 108. Chahine 109. Dada 110. Dajani 111. Dallal 112. Daoud 113. Dar 114. Darwish 115. Dawood 116. Demian 117. Dia 118. Diab 119. Dib 120. Din 121. Doud 122. Ebrahim 123. Ebrahimi 124. Edris 125. Eid 126. Elamin 127. Elbaz 128. El-Sayed 129. Emami 130. Fadel 131. Fahmy 132. Fahs 133. Farag 134. Farah 135. Faraj 136. Fares 137. Farha 138. Farhat 139. Farid 140. Faris 141. Farman 142. Farooq 143. Farooqui 144. Farra 145. Farrah 146. Farran 147. Fawaz 148. Fayad 149. Firman 150. Gaber 151. Gad 152. Galla 153. Ghaffari 154. Ghanem 155. Ghani 156. Ghattas 157. Ghazal 158. Ghazi 159. Greiss 160. Guler 161. Habeeb 162. Habib 163. Habibi 164. Hadi 165. Hafeez 166. Hai 167. Haidar 168. Haider 169. Hakeem 170. Hakim 171. Halaby 172. Halim 173. Hallal 174. Hamad 175. Hamady 176. Hamdan

  64

177. Hamed 178. Hameed 179. Hamid 180. Hamidi 181. Hammad 182. Hammoud 183. Hana 184. Hanif 185. Hannan 186. Haq 187. Haque 188. Hares 189. Hariri 190. Harron 191. Harroun 192. Hasan 193. Hasen 194. Hashem 195. Hashemi 196. Hashim 197. Hashmi 198. Hassan 199. Hassen 200. Hatem 201. Hoda 202. Hoque 203. Hosein 204. Hossain 205. Hosseini 206. Huda 207. Huq 208. Husain 209. Hussain 210. Hussein 211. Ibrahim 212. Idris 213. Imam 214. Iman 215. Iqbal 216. Irani 217. Ishak 218. Ishmael 219. Islam 220. Ismael 221. Ismail 222. Jabara 223. Jabbar 224. Jabbour 225. Jaber 226. Jabour 227. Jafari 228. Jaffer 229. Jafri 230. Jalali 231. Jalil 232. Jama 233. Jamail 234. Jamal 235. Jamil 236. Jan 237. Javed 238. Javid 239. Kaba 240. Kaber 241. Kabir 242. Kader 243. Kaiser 244. Kaleel 245. Kalil 246. Kamal 247. Kamali 248. Kamara 249. Kamel 250. Kanan 251. Karam 252. Karim 253. Karimi 254. Kassem 255. Kazemi 256. Kazi 257. Kazmi 258. Khalaf 259. Khalid 260. Khalifa 261. Khalil 262. Khalili 263. Khan 264. Khatib 265. Khawaja 266. Koroma 267. Laham 268. Latif 269. Lodi 270. Lone 271. Madani 272. Mady 273. Mahdavi 274. Mahdi 275. Mahfouz 276. Mahmood 277. Mahmoud 278. Mahmud 279. Majeed 280. Majid 281. Malak 282. Malek 283. Malik 284. Mannan 285. Mansoor 286. Mansour 287. Mansouri 288. Mansur 289. Maroun 290. Masih 291. Masood 292. Masri 293. Massoud 294. Matar 295. Matin 296. Mattar 297. Meer 298. Meskin 299. Miah 300. Mian 301. Mina 302. Minhas 303. Mir 304. Mirza 305. Mitri 306. Moghaddam 307. Mohamad 308. Mohamed 309. Mohammad 310. Mohammadi 311. Mohammed 312. Mohiuddin 313. Molla 314. Momin 315. Mona 316. Morad 317. Moradi 318. Mostafa 319. Mourad 320. Mousa 321. Moussa 322. Moustafa 323. Mowad 324. Muhammad 325. Muhammed 326. Munir 327. Murad 328. Musa 329. Mussa 330. Mustafa 331. Naderi 332. Nagi 333. Naim 334. Naqvi 335. Nasir 336. Nasr 337. Nasrallah 338. Nasser 339. Nassif 340. Nawaz 341. Nazar 342. Nazir 343. Neman 344. Niazi 345. Noor 346. Noorani 347. Noori 348. Nour 349. Nouri 350. Obeid 351. Odeh 352. Omar 353. Omer 354. Othman 355. Ozer 356. Parsa 357. Pasha 358. Pashia 359. Pirani 360. Popal 361. Pour 362. Qadir 363. Qasim 364. Qazi 365. Quadri 366. Raad 367. Rabbani 368. Rad 369. Radi 370. Radwan 371. Rafiq 372. Rahaim 373. Rahaman 374. Rahim 375. Rahimi 376. Rahman

  65

377. Rahmani 378. Rais 379. Ramadan 380. Ramin 381. Rashed 382. Rasheed 383. Rashid 384. Rassi 385. Rasul 386. Rauf 387. Rayes 388. Rehman 389. Rehmann 390. Reza 391. Riaz 392. Rizk 393. Saab 394. Saad 395. Saade 396. Saadeh 397. Saah 398. Saba 399. Saber 400. Sabet 401. Sabir 402. Sadek 403. Sader 404. Sadiq 405. Sadri 406. Saeed 407. Safar 408. Safi 409. Sahli 410. Saidi 411. Sala 412. Salaam 413. Saladin 414. Salah 415. Salahuddin 416. Salam 417. Salama 418. Salame 419. Salameh 420. Saleem 421. Saleh 422. Salehi 423. Salek 424. Salem 425. Salih 426. Salik 427. Salim 428. Salloum 429. Salman 430. Samaan 431. Samad 432. Samara 433. Sami 434. Samra 435. Sani 436. Sarah 437. Sarwar 438. Sattar 439. Satter 440. Sawaya 441. Sayed 442. Selim 443. Semaan 444. Sesay 445. Shaban 446. Shabazz 447. Shad 448. Shaer 449. Shafi 450. Shah 451. Shahan 452. Shaheed 453. Shaheen 454. Shahid 455. Shahidi 456. Shahin 457. Shaikh 458. Shaker 459. Shakir 460. Shakoor 461. Sham 462. Shams 463. Sharaf 464. Shareef 465. Sharif 466. Shariff 467. Sharifi 468. Shehadeh 469. Shehata 470. Sheikh 471. Siddiqi 472. Siddique 473. Siddiqui 474. Sinai 475. Soliman 476. Soltani 477. Srour 478. Sulaiman 479. Suleiman 480. Sultan 481. Sultana 482. Syed 483. Sylla 484. Tabatabai 485. Tabet 486. Taha 487. Taheri 488. Tahir 489. Tamer 490. Tariq 491. Tawil 492. Toure 493. Turay 494. Uddin 495. Ullah 496. Usman 497. Vaziri 498. Vohra 499. Wahab 500. Wahba 501. Waheed 502. Wakim 503. Wali 504. Yacoub 505. Yamin 506. Yasin 507. Yassin 508. Younan 509. Younes 510. Younis 511. Yousef 512. Yousif 513. Youssef 514. Yousuf 515. Yusuf 516. Zadeh 517. Zafar 518. Zaher 519. Zahra 520. Zaidi 521. Zakaria 522. Zaki 523. Zaman 524. Zamani 525. Zia

  66

APPENDIX 2

Being  Muslim  in  Australia  Survey  Instrument  

 

     

  67

Good afternoon/evening. My name is [name] and I work for the company Specialised who are conducting a survey on behalf of the University of Queensland. We are conducting a study that aims to examine how Muslims living in Australia feel about their faith, place in society and how they feel police and the public accepts them. The study is also interested in your views on counter-terrorism policing and laws. This study has University ethical clearance and findings from this research will assist in our understanding of Muslim attitudes toward police and social inclusion in Australia. Your participation is voluntary, your responses will be kept confidential and no identifying information will be released. You can refuse to answer any particular questions or discontinue the interview at any time. The survey will take approximately 35 minutes to complete. Are you willing to participate?

SECTION 1: PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND Before we commence asking you about your views we would first like to ask you a few background questions about yourself.

Q1. {P1Q1} What is your gender? n %

Male ...................................................................................................... 1 404 50.5 Female ................................................................................................... 2 396 49.5 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q2. {P1Q2} In what year were you born? _________________ See Appendix 3

Q3. {P1Q3} What city do you reside in? n %

Brisbane ................................................................................................ 1 200 25.0 Melbourne ............................................................................................. 2 300 37.5 Sydney ................................................................................................... 3 300 37.5 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q4. {P1Q4/Muslim} What Muslim denomination do you identify with? n %

Sunni Muslim ........................................................................................ 1 555 69.4 Shia Muslim .......................................................................................... 2 245 30.6 Other (please specify) ........................................................................... 3 0 0.0 Total Valid [1480] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q5. {P1Q5/COB} Were you born in Australia? n %

Yes ........................................................................................................ 1 463 57.9 No .......................................................................................................... 2 337 42.1 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

If Q5 = 1, go to Q7; Otherwise go to Q6.

  68

Q6. {P1Q6} If you responded ‘NO’ to the previous question, in which year did you first arrive in Australia to live? __________________ See Appendix 4

Q7. {P1Q7} Are you an Australian Citizen? n %

No .......................................................................................................... 1 9 1.1 Yes ........................................................................................................ 2 791 98.9 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q8. {P2Q8} How would you best describe your ancestry? Provide up to 2 ancestries only (e.g., Lebanese, Indonesian, Pakistani, etc.). 1) _______________________ 2)___________________________ See Appendix 5

Q9. {P2Q9} Is English the main language you speak at home? n %

Yes ........................................................................................................ 1 343 42.9 No .......................................................................................................... 2 457 57.1 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q10. {P2Q10} What is your current marital status? n % Married (including de facto relationships) ................................................................. 1 370 46.3 Single (never married) ............................................................................................... 2 298 37.3 Widowed ................................................................................................................... 3 20 2.5 Divorced or separated ................................................................................................ 4 112 14.0 Refused ...................................................................................................................... 9 - - Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q11. {P2Q11} How often do you attend your local Mosque?

n % Never .......................................................................................................................... 0 3 0.4 Less than once a year ................................................................................................. 1 36 4.5 One or 2 times a year ................................................................................................. 2 39 4.9 Several times a year ................................................................................................... 3 108 13.5 Monthly ...................................................................................................................... 4 94 11.8 Two or 3 times a month ............................................................................................. 5 95 11.9 Nearly every week ..................................................................................................... 6 126 15.8 Weekly ....................................................................................................................... 7 187 23.4 Daily ........................................................................................................................... 8 112 14.0 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q12. {P2Q12} How often do you fast? n % Never .......................................................................................................................... 0 4 0.5 Hardly ever ................................................................................................................. 1 20 2.5 Some days during Ramadan ....................................................................................... 2 81 10.1 During most or all days of Ramadan ......................................................................... 3 439 54.9 During all of Ramadan and other religious holidays ................................................. 4 256 32.0 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

  69

Q13. {P2Q13} What is your current employment status? n % Working full-time ...................................................................................................... 1 355 44.4 Working part-time ...................................................................................................... 2 125 15.6 Not employed but looking for work ........................................................................... 3 31 3.9 Not employed and not looking for work .................................................................... 4 5 0.6 Retired ........................................................................................................................ 5 39 4.9 Studying full-time ...................................................................................................... 6 91 11.4 Studying and working part-time 7 57 7.1 Home duties ............................................................................................................... 8 97 12.1 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0) Q14. {P3Q14} What is your highest level of education you have completed?

n % Did not have any or much formal schooling .............................................................. 1 10 1.3 Primary School ........................................................................................................... 2 34 4.3 Junior Secondary/ Intermediate/ Form 4/ Year 10 ..................................................... 3 109 13.6 Senior Secondary/ Leaving/ Form 6/ Year 12 .......................................................... 4 169 21.1 Certificate (Level I, II, III or IV) ............................................................................... 5 147 18.4 Trade Certificate or Nursing Diploma ....................................................................... 6 103 12.9 Diploma or Advanced Diploma ................................................................................. 7 66 8.3 Bachelor Degree ......................................................................................................... 8 115 14.4 Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma ............................................................... 9 31 3.9 Post-graduate Degree (e.g., Masters or Doctorate) .................................................. 10 16 2.0 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q15. {P3Q15} What was your total household income – how many thousand dollars, before taxes last financial year?

n % $11,000 to $15,000 .................................................................................................... 1 5 0.6 $16,000 to $20,000 .................................................................................................... 2 - - $21,000 to $25,000 .................................................................................................... 3 - - $26,000 to $30,000 .................................................................................................... 4 32 4.0 $31,000 to $35,000 .................................................................................................... 5 37 4.6 $36,000 to $40,000 .................................................................................................... 6 72 9.0 $41,000 to $45,000 .................................................................................................... 7 73 9.1 $46,000 to $50,000 .................................................................................................... 8 50 6.3 $51,000 to $55,000 .................................................................................................... 9 105 13.1 $56,000 to $60,000 .................................................................................................. 10 102 12.8 $61,000 to $65,000 .................................................................................................. 11 80 10.0 $66,000 to $70,000 .................................................................................................. 12 57 7.1 $71,000 to $75,000 .................................................................................................. 13 51 6.4 $76,000 to $80,000 .................................................................................................. 14 41 5.1 $81,000 to $85,000 .................................................................................................. 15 31 3.9 $86,000 to $90,000 .................................................................................................. 16 32 4.0 $91,000 to $95,000 .................................................................................................. 17 7 0.9 $96,000 to $100,000 ................................................................................................ 18 14 1.8 $101,000 to $110,000 .............................................................................................. 19 6 0.8 $111,000 to $120,000 .............................................................................................. 20 5 0.6 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Missing Data (0) (0.0)

  70

SECTION 2: MUSLIMS’ PLACE IN AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY Q16. {P3Q16} The following questions ask you about how you identify and see yourself within Australia.

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree  

     Refused  

   

a. {P3Q16A} I am proud to be an Australian ......................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.20     n   -­‐   13   108   382   297   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.73     %   -­‐   1.6   13.5   47.8   37.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P3Q16B} I identify strongly with being Australian ......................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.68     n   11   109   214   253   213   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.05     %   1.4   13.6   26.8   31.6   26.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P3Q16C} Being an Australian is important to the way I think of myself as a person ............................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.62     n   12   130   218   234   206   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.08     %   1.5   16.3   27.3   29.3   25.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

Q17. {P3Q17} The following questions ask you about how you identify with being Muslim.

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree  

     Refused  

   

a. {P3Q17A} I am proud to be Muslim .......................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.58     n   -­‐   -­‐   15   309   476   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.53     %   -­‐   -­‐   1.9   38.6   59.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P3Q17B} What Islam stands for is important to me ................................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.42     n   -­‐   5   53   342   400   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.64     %   -­‐   0.6   6.6   42.8   50.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P3Q17C} Being a Muslim is important to the way I think of myself as a person ........................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.32     n   -­‐   16   86   324   374   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.74     %   -­‐   2.0   10.8   40.5   46.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P4Q17D} I see myself as a Muslim first and an Australian second ................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.48     n   1   15   49   266   469   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.71     %   0.1   1.9   6.1   33.3   58.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P4Q17E} I see myself as an Australian first and a Muslim second ................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.51     n   34   175   167   197   227   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.23     %   4.3   21.9   20.9   24.6   28.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

Q18. {P4Q18} How fairly do you feel Muslims are treated….

   Very  unfair   Unfair   Neutral   Fair   Very  fair  

   Refused  

   

a. {P4Q18A} At work or in schools ............................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.61     n   20   85   219   341   135   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.97     %   2.5   10.6   27.4   42.6   16.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P4Q18B} When dealing with authorities ......................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.55     n   22   98   233   313   134   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.00     %   2.8   12.3   29.1   39.1   16.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            

  71

c. {P4Q18C} In the media ............................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.48     n   255   214   96   159   76   -­‐     [1468]   (12)  Std  Dev   1.36     %   31.9   26.8   12.0   19.9   9.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

Q19. {P4Q19} Do you think that the majority of Australians:….

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree  

   Refused  

   

a. {P4Q19A} Respect how you live your life ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.61     n   20   99   196   341   144   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.00     %   2.5   12.4   24.5   42.6   18.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P4Q19B} Respect what you contribute to Australia ....................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.75     n   17   83   174   333   193   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.00     %   2.1   10.4   21.8   41.6   24.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P4Q19C} Respect what you believe .......................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.53     n   42   120   172   301   165   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.13     %   5.3   15.0   21.5   37.6   20.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

SECTION 3: POLICING Q20. {P4Q20} Below are some statements that describe the way people may view police in their community. By community we mean the Muslim community in your city or neighbourhood. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused  

   

a. {P4Q20A} I trust the police in my community ........................................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.19     n   9   23   63   419   286   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.79     %   1.1   2.9   7.9   52.4   35.8  

-­‐    [100.0]   (0.0)  

                          b. {P4Q20B} I have confidence in the police in my community ................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.15     n   9   24   63   447   257   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.78     %   1.1   3.0   7.9   55.9   32.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P4Q20C} Police are accessible to the people in my community .................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.28     n   5   21   42   410   322   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.73     %   0.6   2.6   5.3   51.3   40.3   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P4Q20D} People should do what the police tell them to do even if they disagree with their decisions ........................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.94     n   8   59   125   392   216   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.90     %   1.0   7.4   15.6   49.0   27.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P4Q20E} The way the police act in my community is usually consistent with the values of people in my community about what is right and wrong .................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.89     n   13   39   136   445   167   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.84     %   1.6   4.9   17.0   55.6   20.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             f. {P5Q20F} My own feelings about what is right and wrong generally align with how police act in my community ..................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.06     n   16   28   93   421   242   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.86     %   2.0   3.5   11.6   52.6   30.3   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            

  72

Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused    

g. {P5Q20G} I feel a moral obligation to obey police ........................................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.09     n   9   27   72   469   223   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.77     %   1.1   3.4   9.0   58.6   27.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             h. {P5Q20H} The police share the same values of ordinary citizens like me ................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.90     n   17   41   134   420   188   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.89     %   2.1   5.1   16.8   52.5   23.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            i. {P5Q20I} My own feelings about what is right and wrong usually agree with police rules and policies ................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.04     n   12   32   90   440   226   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.83     %   1.5   4.0   11.3   55.0   28.3   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            j. {P4Q20J} I often obey police because I fear the repercussions of doing otherwise ........................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.07     n   6   51   85   395   263   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.87     %   0.8   6.4   10.6   49.4   32.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                              k. {P5Q20K} One should obey police because one has no other choice ...................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.00     n   13   54   102   381   250   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.93     %   1.6   6.8   12.8   47.6   31.3   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            l. {P5Q20L} If one does not obey police, the outcome will not be good ........................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9  

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.32     n   7   19   37   385   352   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.75     %   0.9   2.4   4.6   48.1   44.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)   m. {P5Q20M} It is better to obey police than argue with them ........................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.20     n   3   26   47   453   27   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.72     %   0.4   3.3   5.9   56.6   33.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        n. {P5Q20N} Overall, I obey police with good will ........................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.27     n   -­‐   10   30   495   265   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.59     %   -­‐   1.3   3.8   61.9   33.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             o. {P5Q20O} Police are legitimate authorities entitled to be obeyed ....................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.26     n   1   6   47   476   270   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.61     %   0.1   0.8   5.9   59.5   33.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             p. {P5Q20P} It is our duty to obey police officers, even when we do not like the way they treat us ....................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.95     n   8   53   109   434   196   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.86     %   1.0   6.6   13.6   54.3   24.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             q. {P5Q20Q} There are times when it is OK for you to ignore what police tell you to do .................................................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.02     n   280   318   120   71   11   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.99     %   35.0   39.8   15.0   8.9   1.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

r. {P5Q20R} Police treat people fairly ............................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.98     n   9   41   96   467   187   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.81     %   1.1   5.1   12.0   58.4   23.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        s. {P5Q20S} Police treat people with dignity and respect ............................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.11     n   4   39   97   388   272   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.83     %   0.5   4.9   12.1   48.5   34.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            

  73

Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused    

t. {P5Q20T} Police make their decisions based upon facts, not their personal opinions ............................................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.11     n   8   34   96   386   276   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.85     %   1.0   4.3   12.0   48.3   34.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             u. {P5Q20U} Police give people a chance to express their views before making decisions ........................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.78     n   11   51   156   469   113   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.82     %   1.4   6.4   19.5   58.6   14.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            v. {P5Q20V} Police take account of the needs and concerns of the people they deal with ................................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.69     n   8   51   204   453   84   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.78     %   1.0   6.4   25.5   56.6   10.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

Q21. {P6Q21} In the last 12 months, how many times have you had contact with police (excluding any social or work contact)?   n   %   None ................................................................................................................................. 584 73.0 1. ...................................................................................................................................... 153 19.1 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 50 6.3 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 6 0.8 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 0.1 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 0.1 6 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 0.1 9 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 0.5 Mean 0.40 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Std Dev 0.92 Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q22. {P6Q22} Overall, how would you rate the way police treated you during your most recent contact with police?   n   %   Much worse than expected ............................................................................................ 1 6 1.0 Worse than expected. ..................................................................................................... 2 36 5.9 Neither worse nor better than expected ......................................................................... 3 - - Better than expected ....................................................................................................... 4 425 69.8 Much better than expected ............................................................................................. 5 142 23.3 Refused .......................................................................................................................... 9 191 - Mean 4.09 Total Valid [609] [100.0] Std Dev 0.74 Missing Data (191) (23.9)

Q23. {P6Q23} Can you indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements….

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused  

   

a. {P6Q23A} I have personally been subjected to discriminatory treatment by a police officer ..................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   1.83     n   286   426   41   33   14   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.84     %   35.8   53.3   5.1   4.1   1.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P6Q23B} I know of or have heard about someone in my community being discriminated against by a police officer .......................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.54     n   150   345   64   206   35   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.18     %   18.8   43.1   8.0   25.8   4.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            

  74

Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused    

c. {P6Q23C} The police sometimes give people from specific ethnic backgrounds less help than they give others .......................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.22     n   219   338   114   105   24   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.08     %   27.4   42.3   14.3   13.1   3.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P6Q23D} Police are sometimes more likely to detain people from a Muslim background than people from other backgrounds ...................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.28     n   265   229   148   127   30   1     [799]   (1)  Std  Dev   1.19     %   33.2   28.7   18.5   15.9   3.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.1)   Q24. {P6Q24} Below are some statements about your views of police in Australia. Circle the number that most closely resembles your own view.

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused  

   

a. {P6Q24A} It is important not to let police push you around ..................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.17     n   31   210   228   254   77   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.05     %   3.9   26.3   28.5   31.8   9.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P6Q24B} If you don’t cooperate with police, they will get tough with you ................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.14     n   11   54   59   366   310   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.92     %   1.4   6.8   7.4   45.8   38.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P7Q24C} One the police think of you as a trouble-maker they will never change their mind .......................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.72     n   28   130   104   313   225   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.14     %   3.5   16.3   13.0   39.1   28.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P7Q24D} As a society we need more people willing to take a stand against police .................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.04     n   218   420   93   52   17   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.92     %   27.3   52.5   11.6   6.5   2.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P7Q24E} I don’t care if I am NOT doing the right thing by police .......................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.32     n   87   408   267   37   1   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.73     %   10.9   51.0   33.4   4.6   0.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             f. {P7Q24F} If the police get tough with me, I will not cooperate with them ................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.45     n   84   387   217   107   5   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.87     %   10.5   48.4   27.1   13.4   0.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             g. {P7Q24G} I personally don’t think that there is much the police can do to me to make me obey the law if I don’t want to .......................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.27     n   97   478   142   75   8   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.83     %   12.1   59.8   17.8   9.4   1.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             h. {P7Q24H} I don’t really know what the police expect of me and I’m not about to ask ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.36     n   78   432   225   58   7   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.79     %   9.8   54.0   28.1   7.3   0.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            i. {P7Q24I} If I find out that I am not doing what the police want, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it .................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.33     n   74   485   166   54   20   1     [799]   (1)  Std  Dev   0.83     %   9.3   60.7   20.8   6.8   2.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.1)  

  75

Q25. {P7Q25} Can you indicate whether the police in your community are doing a very good, good, average, poor, or very poor job at doing the following….

          Very  poor   Poor   Average   Good  Very  good  

   Refused  

   

                          a. {P7Q25A} Dealing with problems that concern you ...................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.14     n   2   17   113   401   267   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.75     %   0.3   2.1   14.1   50.1   33.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        b. {P7Q25B} Preventing crime ....................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.22     n   4   26   75   379   316   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.76     %   0.5   3.3   9.4   47.4   39.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P7Q25C} Keeping order ............................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.22     n   3   14   84   405   294   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.73     %   0.4   1.8   10.5   50.6   36.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)   d. {P7Q25D} Solving crime ............................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.19     n   6   28   74   394   298   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.80     %   0.8   3.5   9.3   49.3   37.3   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

SECTION 4: POLICING OF TERRORISM Q26. {P8Q26} We will now be asking you a series of questions about how police deal with the threat of terrorism in Australia. Below are some statements that describe the way people may view police in their efforts to fight terrorism. In answering these questions, think about how police attempt to deal with terrorism, and not policing everyday activities. Please tell us what you think.

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused  

   

a. {P8Q26A} You trust police to make decisions that are good for everyone when they investigate and prosecuting terrorism ....................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.95     n   11   44   102   459   184   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.84     %   1.4   5.5   12.8   57.4   23.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P8Q26B} People’s rights are generally well protected by police when they are investigating and prosecuting terrorism ........................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.91     n   8   54   121   433   184   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.86     %   1.0   6.8   15.1   54.1   23.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P8Q26C} You have confidence in police to effectively deal with terrorism ........................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.83     n   16   64   107   463   150   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.89     %   2.0   8.0   13.4   57.9   18.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P8Q26D} I have confidence in police when they investigate &prosecute terrorism .................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.80     n   22   63   124   432   159   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.94     %   2.8   7.9   15.5   54.0   19.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P8Q26E} When the police fight terrorism they gain respect ............................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.12     n   24   34   103   302   337   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.99     %   3.0   4.3   12.9   37.8   42.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             f. {P8Q26F} Policing terrorism negatively affects police-citizen relationships ................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.40     n   159   328   171   121   21   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.05     %   19.9   41.0   21.4   15.1   2.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             g. {P8Q26G} Police activities in fighting terrorism impair their relationships with Muslim communities in Australia .................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.42     n   226   239   141   159   35   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.21     %   28.3   29.9   17.6   19.9   4.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

  76

Q27. {P8Q27} In answering the following set of questions we want you to think about how police act and behave when dealing with people in your community regarding issues around terrorism. When dealing with you or people in your community concerning issues of terrorism, the police….

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused  

   

a. {P8Q27A} Give people a chance to express their views before making decisions ................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.69     n   4   68   209   414   105   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.82     %   0.5   8.5   26.1   51.8   13.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P8Q27B} Make their decisions based upon facts, not their personal opinions ............................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.08     n   11   58   113   291   327   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.98     %   1.4   7.3   14.1   36.4   40.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P9Q27C} Apply the law consistently to everyone, regardless of who they are ............................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.89     n   18   60   132   369   221   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.97     %   2.3   7.5   16.5   46.1   27.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P9Q27D} Consider people’s views when deciding what to do ................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.71     n   18   63   200   372   147   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.93     %   2.3   7.9   25.0   46.5   18.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P9Q27E} Take account of the needs and concerns of the people they deal with ........................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.63     n   10   75   234   363   118   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.89     %   1.3   9.4   29.3   45.4   14.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             f. {P9Q27F} Respect people’s rights .............................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.06     n   8   38   105   400   249   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.85     %   1.0   4.8   13.1   50.0   31.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             g. {P9Q27G} Treat people with dignity and respect ........................................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.02     n   11   42   114   384   249   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.89     %   1.4   5.3   14.3   48.0   31.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             h. {P9Q27H} Treat people fairly .................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.03     n   10   44   115   374   257   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.89     %   1.3   5.5   14.4   46.8   32.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            i. {P9Q27I} Try to be fair when making decisions ........................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.07     n   10   41   100   379   270   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.88     %   1.3   5.1   12.5   47.4   33.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            j. {P9Q27J} Are polite when dealing with people ............................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.08     n   7   35   106   390   262   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.84     %   0.9   4.4   13.3   48.8   32.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

  77

Q28. {P9Q28} While we appreciate you may not know too much about Australia’s specific counter-terrorism laws, please tell us how you generally feel about their existence:

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  Agree   Refused  

   

a. {P9Q28A} I question the fairness of some of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws ..................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.81     n   101   263   199   162   75   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.17     %   12.6   32.9   24.9   20.3   9.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P9Q28B} I have confidence in Australia’s counter-terrorism laws ................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.79     n   28   47   127   459   139   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.92     %   3.5   5.9   15.9   57.4   17.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P9Q28C} I question the legitimacy of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws ................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.98     n   43   293   205   154   105   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.14     %   5.4   36.6   25.6   19.3   13.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P9Q28D} Counter-terrorism laws unfairly target Muslims .................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.00     n   12   39   156   325   268   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.93     %   1.5   4.9   19.5   40.6   33.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P9Q28E} My own feelings about right and wrong generally align with the objectives of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws ................................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.05     n   13   26   85   459   217   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.81     %   1.6   3.3   10.6   57.4   27.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             f. {P9Q28F} Counter-terrorism laws are usually consistent with the values of people in my community about what is right and wrong ................................................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.09     n   12   27   79   442   240   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.81     %   1.5   3.4   9.9   55.3   30.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

Q29. {P10Q29} If the situation arose, how likely would you be to….

     Very  

unlikely   Unlikely   Maybe     Likely  Very  likely   Refused  

   

a. {P10Q29A} Call the police to report a crime ................................................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.25     n   4   10   62   429   295   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.69     %   0.5   1.3   7.8   53.6   36.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P10Q29B} Help police find someone suspected of committing a crime by providing them with information ...................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.24     n   4   13   66   424   293   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.71     %   0.5   1.6   8.3   53.0   36.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P10Q29C} Report dangerous or suspicious activities to police ........................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.17     n   2   15   84   441   258   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.70     %   0.3   1.9   10.5   55.1   32.3   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P10Q29D} Willingly assist police if asked ................................................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.16     n   3   15   82   455   245   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.70     %   0.4   1.9   10.3   56.9   30.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P10Q29E} Work with police to educate people in your community about the dangers of terrorism and terrorists .................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.13     n   10   38   72   396   284   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.86     %   1.3   4.8   9.0   49.5   35.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            

  78

Very  

unlikely   Unlikely   Maybe     Likely  Very  likely   Refused    

f. {P10Q29F} Encourage members of your community to generally cooperate with police efforts to fight terrorism ......................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.13     n   11   33   77   400   279   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.85     %   1.4   4.1   9.6   50.0   34.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             g. {P10Q29G} Attend a community forum held at your local Mosque to discuss with police how terrorism can be prevented ............................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.20     n   15   33   70   345   337   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.90     %   1.9   4.1   8.8   43.1   42.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)   Q30. {P10Q30} If you saw or heard about the following activities, how likely would you be to report it to police….

   Very  

unlikely   Unlikely   Maybe     Likely  Very  likely   Refused  

   

a. {P10Q30A} A person saying he or she had joined a group you consider politically radical ............................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.79     n   38   77   132   321   232   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.11     %   4.8   9.6   16.5   40.1   29.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P10Q30B} A person overheard discussing their decision to help plant explosives in a terrorist attack .......................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.44     n   7   12   39   303   439   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.74     %   0.9   1.5   4.9   37.9   54.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P10Q30C} A person visiting Internet chat rooms or Web sites in which there is material posted that supports al Qaeda ............................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.62     n   44   75   168   367   146   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.06     %   5.5   9.4   21.0   45.9   18.3   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P10Q30D} A person reading religious literature you believe to be extremist ............................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.57     n   43   79   206   326   146   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.06     %   5.4   9.9   25.8   40.8   18.3   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P10Q30E} A person giving money to organisations that people say are associated with terrorists .................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.00     n   36   54   97   303   310   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.09     %   4.5   6.8   12.1   37.9   38.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             f. {P10Q30F} A person talking about traveling overseas to fight for Muslims ............................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.10     n   30   41   90   300   339   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.04     %   3.8   5.1   11.3   37.5   42.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             g. {P11Q30G} A person distributing materials expressing support for al Qaeda ........................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.18     n   29   26   86   287   372   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.00     %   3.6   3.3   10.8   35.9   46.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

  79

Q31. {P11Q31} Below are some statements about how you and your community feel about counter-terrorism activities. Tell us whether you agree or disagree with the following statements….

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused  

   

a. {P11Q31A} I feel at risk of being accused of terrorist activities because of my faith ................................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.06     n   80   218   138   304   60   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.16     %   10.0   27.3   17.3   38.0   7.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P11Q31B} Others in my community feel at risk of being accused of terrorism because of their faith ........................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.79     n   16   139   107   275   263   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.14     %   2.0   17.4   13.4   34.4   32.9   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P11Q31C} I feel under more scrutiny by police and authorities because of my faith ................................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.14     n   49   181   236   273   61   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.05     %   6.1   22.6   29.5   34.1   7.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                       d. {P11Q31D} I feel under more scrutiny by the media and public because of my faith ................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.92     n   17   126   83   254   320   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.15     %   2.1   15.8   10.4   31.8   40.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P11Q31E} The War on Terror disproportionately targets Muslims .................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.98     n   17   80   79   349   275   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.02     %   2.1   10.0   9.9   43.6   34.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             f. {P11Q31F} I sometimes feel police view me as a potential terrorist because of my faith ................................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.18     n   39   221   199   242   99   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.11     %   4.9   27.6   24.9   30.3   12.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             g. {P11Q31G} I sometimes feel the Australian public views me as a potential terrorist because of my faith ............................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.59     n   37   145   84   379   155   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.13     %   4.6   18.1   10.5   47.4   19.4   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

Q32. {P11Q32) How much do police consider your community’s views….

    Never   Rarely  Occasionally   Often   Always  

   Refused  

   

a. {P11Q32A} When making decisions about how to address terrorism ......................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.63     n   47   295   369   85   4   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.77     %   5.9   36.9   46.1   10.6   0.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P11Q32B} When trying to deal with radicalisation in your community ..................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.62     n   50   320   320   105   5   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.81     %   6.3   40.0   40.0   13.1   0.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

  80

Q33. {P11Q33} How would you rate police in terms of whether they are making you feel safe from the threat of terrorism?   n   %   Very poor job ................................................................................................................. 1 1 33.8 Poor job .......................................................................................................................... 2 21 0 Neither ........................................................................................................................... 3 99 6.8 Good job ........................................................................................................................ 4 484 8.1 Very good job ................................................................................................................ 5 195 44.6 Refused .......................................................................................................................... 9 - - Mean 4.06 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Std Dev 0.69 Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q34. {P12Q34} To what extent have you changed the following practices as a result of police scrutiny around terrorism?

    Not  at  all   A  little   Somewhat     Mostly  A  great  deal   Refused  

   

a. {P12Q34A} Attendance at group prayers in a mosque .......................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.51     n   107   302   277   106   8   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.92     %   13.4   37.8   34.6   13.3   1.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P12Q34B} How you dress in public .......................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.52     n   120   280   274   117   9   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.95     %   15.0   35.0   34.3   14.6   1.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P12Q34C} Your everyday activities ......................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.24     n   221   280   196   89   14   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.03     %   27.6   35.0   24.5   11.1   1.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                       

d. {P12Q34D} Your travel behaviour ............................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.10     n   279   242   207   64   8   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.00     %   34.9   30.3   25.9   8.0   1.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

Q35. {P12Q35} There is a serious risk of a major terrorist attack in Australia at this time.   n   %   Strongly disagree ........................................................................................................... 1 376 47.0 Disagree ......................................................................................................................... 2 392 49.0 Neither ........................................................................................................................... 3 26 3.3 Agree .............................................................................................................................. 4 6 0.8 Strongly agree ................................................................................................................ 5 - - Refused .......................................................................................................................... 9 - - Mean 1.58 Total Valid [800] [100.0] Std Dev 0.60 Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q36. {P12Q36} Below are some statements that describe different views on terrorism and the Muslim religion. Circle the number that most closely resembles your own view.

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused  

   

a. {P12Q36A} Terrorists sometimes have valid grievances ................................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.28     n   253   276   109   118   44   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.21     %   31.6   34.5   13.6   14.8   5.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P12Q36B} Terrorist groups like al Qaeda distort the true meaning of Islam ........................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.34     n   5   19   75   301   400   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.79     %   0.6   2.4   9.4   37.6   50.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                            

  81

Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  agree   Refused    

c. {P12Q36C} Islam is often misinterpreted as a religion that advocates violence ............................................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   4.63     n   2   6   18   238   536   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.60     %   0.3   0.8   2.3   29.8   67.0   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)          

                        d. {P12Q36D} The concept of Jihad in Islam supports use of violence as a means to an end ........................................................................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.48     n   221   257   119   127   76   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.30     %   27.6   32.1   14.9   15.9   9.5   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             e. {P12Q36E} Jihad is solely a personal struggle for righteousness ................................................................................................................................. 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   3.34     n   22   176   214   283   105   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.05     %   2.8   22.0   26.8   35.4   13.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             f. {P12Q36F} Jihad is a militarized struggle that can be conducted by individuals ........................................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   1.48     n   505   234   41   15   5   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.74     %   63.1   29.3   5.1   1.9   0.6   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

Q37. {P13Q37} Below are some statements that describe some people’s views of Australia’s international policies. Circle the number that most closely resembles your own view.

   Strongly  disagree   Disagree   Neither     Agree  

Strongly  Agree   Refused  

   

a. {P13Q37A} Australia made the right decision to align itself with the US with respect to military force in Afghanistan ........................................................................................................... 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   1.99     n   217   425   116   36   6   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.82     %   27.1   53.1   14.5   4.5   0.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             b. {P13Q37B} Australia made the right decision to align itself with the US with respect to military force in Iraq ........................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   1.85     n   268   425   70   31   6   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   0.79     %   33.5   53.1   8.8   3.9   0.8   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)                             c. {P13Q37C} The War on Terror is a war on Islam ............................................................................................................................................................ 1   2   3   4   5   9    

Total Valid

Missing Data

Mean   2.66     n   238   177   98   190   97   -­‐     [800]   (0)  Std  Dev   1.42     %   29.8   22.1   12.3   23.8   12.1   -­‐     [100.0]   (0.0)  

That concludes the survey. We thank you very much for the time you have given up to assist us in our research. If you have any further comments that you would like to add please tell us now and we will record them below.    

  82

Appendix 3

Q2. {P1Q2} In what year were you born? 1932 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Frequency 1 1 4 1 3 1 5 4 5 5 3 4 6 4 6 3 3 5 9 4 3 9 5 7 6

10 2 7 6 3 8

13 8 7

11 10 17 14 13 7 9

10 8

14 13 13 17 16 14 16 25 25 28 20 33 34 35 31 40 32 38 40

Valid % 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.3 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.0 3.1 3.1 3.5 2.5 4.1 4.3 4.4 3.9 5.0 4.0 4.8 5.0

  83

1996 1997 Total Missing Average Age Std Dev

44 2

[800] (0)

34.9 15.5

5.5 0.3

[100.0] (0.0)

  84

Appendix 4

Q6. {P1Q6 } If not born in Australia, in which year did you first arrive in Australia to live?

Value 1962 1963 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 Total

Missing

Frequency 2 1 1 3 4 4

12 7

13 10 8

11 18 16 9

10 17 9

10 15 11 6 4 7 6 5

13 9 4 8 8 5 2 2 8 1 3 3 5 6 6 3 2 9 7 5 5 4

[337] (463)

Valid % 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.9 1.2 1.2 3.6 2.1 3.9 3.0 2.4 3.3 5.3 4.7 2.7 3.0 5.0 2.7 3.0 4.5 3.3 1.8 1.2 2.1 1.8 1.5 3.9 2.7 1.2 2.4 2.4 1.5 0.6 0.6 2.4 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.8 1.8 0.9 0.6 2.7 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.2

[100.0] (57.9)

  85

Appendix 5

Q8. {P2Q8} How would you best describe your ancestry? Provide up to 2 ancestries only (e.g., Lebanese, Indonesian, Pakistani, etc.). Ancestry 1 Ancestry 2 Afghanistani Albanian Algerian Bangladeshi Bosnian Burmese Chinese Egyptian Fijian Ghana Indian Indonesian Iranian Iraqi Jordanian Kuwaiti Lebanese Libian Malaysian Morroccan Nepal Nigerian Pakistani Palestinian Saudi Arabian Somalian South African Sudan Syrian Tunisian Turkish U.A.E Yamani Total Missing

Frequency 7 3 2

14 22 1 2

38 1 2

18 79 18 55 13 11

308 4

14 4 1 2

85 22 3

11 15 1

18 3

21 1 1

[800] (0)

Valid % 0.9 0.4 0.3 1.7 2.7 0.1 0.3 4.7 0.1 0.3 2.3 9.8 2.3 6.9 1.6 1.4

38.4 0.5 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.3

10.6 2.7 0.4 1.4 1.9 0.1 2.3 0.4 2.6 0.1 0.1

[100.0] (0.0)

Australian Croatian Egyptian Ethiopian Indian Jordanian Lebanese Malaysian Pakistani Palestinian Syrian Turkish Total Missing

Frequency 3 1 2 1 3 3 5 3 1 8 6 3

[39] (761)

Valid % 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.8 0.4

[100.0] (95.1)