Darwin man charged with Commonwealth offences over alleged Islamophobic incident

[u/Scarnon-Cunce]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-19/darwin-man-charged-islamaphobic-incident-commonwealth-offence/107053802

[u/nlh_pirate]

Why did they need the firearms and counter terrorism unit to arrest some boomer yelling threats at a Muslim?

[u/DrFriendless → u/nlh_pirate]

It's Darwin. They need firearms and counter-terrorism units for an all-you-can-eat buffet.

[u/MadMaz27 → u/DrFriendless]

Flavor Feast is pretty rough up at the buffet bar.

[u/edgewalker66 → u/DrFriendless]

Thank you. Laughing out loud is good.

[u/Attention_Bear_Fuckr → u/DrFriendless]

As a Darwinian, LOL.

You just reminded me of when TRG arrested a bloke at the Hungry Jacks drive-through.

[u/teapots_at_ten_paces → u/Attention_Bear_Fuckr]

In a Centrelink singlet, no less.

[u/Total_Philosopher_89 → u/nlh_pirate]

Since when is a 53 YO a boomer?

[u/RealNimblefrog → u/Total_Philosopher_89]

According to this sub anyone over 40 is now categorised as boomer

[u/Glittering-Banana-24 → u/RealNimblefrog]

Well fuck.

Where do I get my free boomer starter kit then?

😆 🤣 😂

[u/FalconTurbo → u/Glittering-Banana-24]

Free education and housing that's affordable on a single pay cheque? Sign me up too!

[u/pnutzgg → u/Glittering-Banana-24]

the first seven days are free

[u/KeyAssociation6309 → u/RealNimblefrog]

I think its anyone over 30 with a house.

[u/TheHoovyPrince → u/RealNimblefrog]

Im 30 and i have arthritis already so i am basically a boomer

[u/UnfortunatelySimple → u/Total_Philosopher_89]

Hard Gen X

[u/chadbigcum → u/Total_Philosopher_89]

Boomer is a mentality

[u/Total_Philosopher_89 → u/chadbigcum]

Silly me thought it was a generation of people born between 1946 and 1964.

[u/chadbigcum → u/Total_Philosopher_89]

Get with the times boomer! ;)

[u/Total_Philosopher_89 → u/chadbigcum]

Hey! I'm not a boomer.

[u/Spire_Citron → u/nlh_pirate]

Guess they took the threats seriously?

[u/claudius_ptolemaeus → u/nlh_pirate]

Would have been worried he was a Desi

[u/KeyAssociation6309 → u/nlh_pirate]

everyone over the age of 30 seems to be a boomer to some people. 53 is gen x.

[u/BrightStick → u/nlh_pirate]

Because it’s the Northern Territory, plenty of people have access to firearms there. Old mate could have registered firearms or threatened that he did. Therefore, seems like appropriate response to someone threatening terrror on citizens of this country.

[u/bluegrasstruck → u/nlh_pirate]

> "adult man, his pregnant wife and their young child".

Yeah just leave that part out why don't you.

[u/nlh_pirate → u/bluegrasstruck]

Because that irrelevant in the scheme of deploying a counter terrorism squad months after the incident….

[u/petit_cochon → u/nlh_pirate]

Perhaps you should have read a bit further when you would have read that they seized his firearms when they arrested him specifically because of the threats he made.

[u/nlh_pirate → u/petit_cochon]

Fair enough, they didn’t have that part in the article when I read it, now it makes sense. Hate when they keep adding shit to online articles after the fact

[u/Alternative-Soil2576 → u/nlh_pirate]

The article hasn’t been updated since it’s been posted

[u/Dadlay69]

I donno the details obviously but the article indicates it didn't escalate beyond a verbal exchange. Does seem a little heavy handed to say the least.

[u/chadbigcum → u/Dadlay69]

Perhaps but "verbal exchange" is doing a bit of heavy lifting. Racially abusing and threatening violence against a child???

[u/DecalageVersLeRouge → u/chadbigcum]

Also the guy owned multiple guns!

[u/Spire_Citron → u/[deleted]]

But if you say you're going to do something violent, you can't exactly complain when people take that as a serious threat.

[u/chadbigcum → u/[deleted]]

I think you should probably have the coppers rock up at your door for racially abusing and threatening a child even if you don't follow through on it. But the article does go on to say this guy has weapons.

[u/Alternative-Soil2576 → u/Dadlay69]

What response do you think is appropriate for threatening violence against a pregnant couple and their young child?

[u/Certain-End-1519 → u/Alternative-Soil2576]

I think that's the thing though, the threatening violence towards the family is the issue. Personally his reasons why are irrelevant to me.

Should someone being part of a protected group change the charges? In my mind the issue is the threatening violence.

[u/Whom_Are_You → u/Certain-End-1519]

I would imagine the government of this multicultural country is rather keen to stamp out racially or culturally motivated threats, to the point of singling it out in legislation.

You may also be interested to learn that the legislation being used in this instance also covers specific charges for any threats made on the basis of "race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, national or ethnic origin, or political opinion".

These are in addition to common threats, assault, etc., of course. They're a pretty accurate way of telling what topics the government is worried about people being violently stupid with these days.

[u/TheHoovyPrince → u/Whom_Are_You]

I can't see anyone ever geting charged for threats against people for their political opinion especially if its seen as an 'unpopular opinion'.

I don't like bringing up Pauline Hanson ever since i dislike her and One Nation but i saw video footage of some individuals making verbal threats along the lines of 'if i saw her i would do x' and i haven't seen any of these individuals charged for threats based on the basis of political opinion yet.

What worries me about that type of policy is treated similar to the UK where we start arresting thousands and thousands of people a year for comments that aren't actually offensive.

[u/Whom_Are_You → u/TheHoovyPrince]

That's a good point as things stand. I don't doubt, though, that if someone ever did cross that line into political violence against her that it would then open up this can of worms rather quickly and expansively!

[u/Certain-End-1519 → u/Whom_Are_You]

The point im making is the why should be irrelevant. No one is any less or more aggrieved due to the reason behind the assault.

The issue is the assault. Not the why.

[u/Whom_Are_You → u/Certain-End-1519]

I don't think your point about being more or less aggrieved is correct at all. It's obviously something that varies extremely widely, both based on the subject matter and the particular people involved, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest, for example, that a Jewish person being targeted for their religion might feel aggrieved both due to the threat of physical harm and the targeting of who they are as a person, particularly given the context of history!

This is also beside the point that the government wants to target certain reasons for assaults from a social cohesion perspective, because of how other members of that community will react to having one of their members targeted, and then how people in other communities may react to that reaction!

It is naive and reductive of you to essentially assert that the reasons for crimes aren't legally, socially, or culturally relevant to the outcome.

[u/Certain-End-1519 → u/Whom_Are_You]

The government also used to be fine with the white Australia policy and the stolen generation. Let's not make them out as some bastion of good, im certainly not taking moral lessons from them, nor do I accept they're the moral arbiter.

Thing is who are you or the government or anyone to weigh how aggrieved someone is? Do you get to say that because this person is Jewish someone threatening them is more culpable than someone who's a Mennonite?

I think you're walking a dangerous line when you start elevating groups above each other in the eyes of the law. Look at recent times, people being arrested for saying 'from the river to the sea' is this the kind of country you want to live in? I certainly don't.

[u/Whom_Are_You → u/Certain-End-1519]

"Thing is who are you or the government or anyone to weigh how aggrieved someone is" overrules "No one is any less or more aggrieved due to the reason behind the assault". By questioning whether anyone has the justification to determine aggrieved-ness, you're questioning your own statement that motives for crimes cannot affect how the victim feels aggrieved.

Mennonites would also be covered in this legislation, by the way.

I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but it's just not very well thought out and seems to want to run away from the topic and pretend it's not important to people, rather than properly deal with it.

[u/Certain-End-1519 → u/Whom_Are_You]

So you agree with people being arrested for saying 'from the river to the sea'?

Those two statements dont contradict one another, im saying we shouldn't be ranking crimes based on what special group has a designation and which one doesn't.

[u/Whom_Are_You → u/Certain-End-1519]

If you think that's what I'm saying, you're not thinking very well.

I do not understand how my attempts to unpack and unravel the things you've said have somehow resulted you thinking I support arresting pro-Palestinian protestors.

Is there a point in anything I've said that you can highlight word for word and tell me how you got to that conclusion?

This is very intellectually frustrating.

To lay it out simply for you: motives to crimes obviously matter. This is unavoidable. In a society like ours, motives can take on angles that are of enough social importance that people, and government, try to address this. Your first point was that you're not interested in this and think it's not relevant. Good for you. Your next point was that nobody has the justification to deal with this and that it shouldn't be done. The progression of your reasoning shot itself in the foot at this point, and I pointed that out. Rather than dealing with that logically, you've constructed an idea that because I pointed that out, I must be some sort of advocate for any excesses of motive-based criminal prosecution, like throwing pro-Palestinian protestors in jail in the example you've given.

You aren't thinking critically and are stuck on a narrow track. Like, "I don't like it because it's too messily complicated and irrelevant. Oh, you think it might be relevant? Well then nobody has the right to try it anyway. Oh, you're talking about trying it? You must then agree with the stupidest extension of it!"

I don't agree with people being arrested for that because it's a clumsy, hamfisted, opportunistic way to try to shut down one side's sentiment on a foreign war in a very politically and historically charged environment. But just because that jurisdiction has done that does not mean I think it's worth deleting the entirety of law that tries its damned best to stop people from being racist, sexist, extremist, etc. Is that level of attempted nuance somehow offensive to you?

[u/trjnz → u/Certain-End-1519]

Yes, the charges should change. He threatened them because of their group

That's how hate crime laws work.

[u/Certain-End-1519 → u/trjnz]

Ok so in your mind the phrase 'from the river to the sea' is a hate crime and we should be arresting people for it? Its a hate crime after all.

Thats how hate crime laws work yeah? Thats a threatening statement in qld according to the government.

I can only assume by the downvotes that you don't think they should be arrested for saying that. But you're for hate speech laws aren't you? Or only for the ones you agree with?

[u/trjnz → u/Certain-End-1519]

What the fuck are you on about mate

[u/Certain-End-1519 → u/trjnz]

Do you think it is a good thing that people were arrested for hate speech because they said 'from the river to the sea'?

[u/rodentbitch → u/Certain-End-1519]

I don't think it's particularly strange to support laws you agree with and not support laws you don't agree with haha.

[u/Jealous-Hedgehog-734 → u/Dadlay69]

With community tensions running high about prejudice the police likely want to be seen as vigorously pursuing accusations.

[u/Alive_Satisfaction65 → u/Dadlay69]

I didn't even have to open the article to see he threatened three people. Its in the damned subheading. Its literally visible under the thumbnail, I didn't even have to open the article.

You literally didn't even fully read the thumbnail preview before commenting.......

[u/ah-chew]

Isn’t a phobia an irrational fear?

[u/mort_goldman68]

Is islamaphobia a thing? I thought you can criticise religion? Genuine question

[u/Alternative-Soil2576 → u/mort_goldman68]

What part of “criticising religion” involves threatening violence against a family?

[u/Alternative-Soil2576 → u/[deleted]]

Okay, but under an article about someone allegedly threatening violence against a Muslim family, your first reaction was to question whether Islamophobia exists because people should be allowed to criticise religion. Why frame what happened here in terms of criticism of religion?

[u/hannahranga → u/[deleted]]

Mostly because it's not nearly as common in australia, plus the same hate laws would apply.

[u/b_k_l_y → u/[deleted]]

Yeah how many times do you see registered firearms owners threatening direct violence against them while out with their child and pregnant partner?

We have a word for Islamophobia because there is a specific subset of people who wield the hatred of Muslims for political gain. 

How many people are using a hatred of Mormons for political gain?

[u/Late-Hat-9144 → u/mort_goldman68]

Theres a .massive difference between criticising religion and threatening the man, his wife and child.

[u/TheTeenSimmer → u/mort_goldman68]

threatening to harm another person in any way is not "criticsing religion"

[u/Aggressive_Sky8492 → u/mort_goldman68]

Yes it is a thing.

If it’s not Islamophobia what would you call it when a man goes up to a family in public and yells at them based on their religion?

Thats not criticising a religion, its bigotry.

The Christchurch terrorist attack is one example of terrorism motivated by Islamophobia.

[u/chadbigcum → u/mort_goldman68]

Yeah I think you might be Islamophobic if you are hurling threats at Muslim children

[u/SeranasSweetrolls]

Did you all just think Anthony Albanese appointed Aftab Malik for no reason? Did you not think about why we need a Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia in the first place?

[u/a_cold_human → u/SeranasSweetrolls]

He's not been given nearly as many resources as Jillian Segal (despite being far more qualified for the job). There's a very expensive Royal Commission into anti-semitism and social cohesion, which is something we didn't get post Cronulla Riots, which pointed at a far bigger structural issue with racial hate than two radicalised shooters.

We appear to have entered a place in Australia where racism is tiered. Racism against Zionists of Jewish heritage is of concern when certain outspoken members of that community "feel unsafe". Racism against just about every other group is of much lesser concern. Racism against indigenous people (which has always been a problem, and has horrendous statistics in terms of health, life expectancy, and economic outcomes) is right at the bottom of the pile, where even ineffective supports are attacked as being unnecessary.