It was reported Saturday that Labor MP Anne Aly was highly critical of the Prime Minister for how he handled the terror attack in, where else but, Labor’s Victoria.

Touted as a counter-terrorism expert, the leftist Islam apologist accused the PM of ‘dividing the community’ by pointing out that “the greatest threat to our way of life is radical, violent, extremist Islam.” Of course, fundamental Islam is more than a bit of a problem for all culturally Christian nations where it has any significant presence; and the bigger the presence, the bigger the problem.

The sober reality which doesn’t fit Aly’s socially divisive narrative is that the PM’s comments were qualified and restrained. Instead, she suggested that Scott Morrison was using the attack for his own political gain.

My barber is a Muslim and also has a degree in Counter Terrorism. We often have great chats. Somewhat sceptical of the leftist agendas and academics which so have permeated higher education in recent decades, I once asked him how much of his course dealt with the threat and modern examples of radical Islam – you know: the twin towers, the Bali bombing, ISIS calling for ‘lone wolves’ around the world to attack the allies and a long list of other jihadist attacks on the Christian West. My scepticism still did not prepare me for his answer.

“None.”

Anne Aly appears to have obtained her ‘expert’ status on counter-terrorism from the same school of thought. Some might even be tempted to label such wilful ignorance as groupthink, but that would be generous. I suggest she’s a propagandist, leading by her position, not following, the leftist lemmings into uncritical disregard of several decades of terrorism headlines.

Anne Aly is the political opportunist in this story, while Scott Morrison is guilty only of understating the obvious. Her dog-whistle of a comment appeals to her echo chamber of simple folks who refuse to say ‘Islamic terrorism’ when a Muslim immigrant from Somalia tries to detonate his car in a crowd and stab as many people as possible after Friday prayers.

The pack howls their indignation at people who quickly call a waddling quacker a duck and no matter how many occasions such early assumptions are proven correct they refuse to withdraw their erroneous judgements, and instead insist common sense is bigotry.

If further evidence of the Muslim MP’s virtue-signalling is needed, one need look no further than her other comments, offering domestic violence as logically equivalent to Islamic terrorism and decrying the Prime Minister for not calling it the greatest threat to Australia.

Firstly, if this Labor hack wants to credibly compare quantities of violence, how can she objectively go past the hundreds of violent murders committed in Australian abortion clinics every day? She can’t.

She ignorantly claims the biggest victims of violence in Australia aren’t victims of terrorism, but are victims of domestic violence. Between 200-300 people a day are killed by abortionists in Australia and so Aly is plainly wrong on the facts when she says any other group is a bigger group of victims. Her compassion is nothing more than politically opportunistic dog-whistling.

Secondly, Anne Aly blithely glosses over the substantial differences between fundamental Islamic terrorism and domestic violence. The most glaringly obvious difference is it’s a lot harder and more complicated to solve the social problems of people who’ve been Australian for generations than it is to solve the problem of importing other nations’ cultural problems.

There would be few voters who would be opposed to the notion that Australian residency and welfare payments are privileges. Such privileges are easily revoked for such poor characters as the Bourke Street terrorist and his brother. Their whole family should be removed if they are not citizens. It should be easy and it should be predictable.

Yes; the whole family.

Australia’s generous welfare system makes it a target country for economic refugees (not refugees). Hezbollah incentivises terrorism against Israel by promising generous financial rewards to the family of suicidal jihadists with tragic consequences. It logically follows that Australia should incentivise clearly lacking family diligence and disincentivise jihadists by ending the jackpot of Australian generosity and deporting their family. When a family cares more about Sharia than Australia, removing a family’s ability to wage even ‘cultural jihad’ in this way would be a punishment their culture understands more than anything Western legal traditions offer.

In summary, how do you change the social problems of domestic violence? The answer is with a great deal of difficulty and over a long time. How do you change the social problems of fundamental Islamic terrorism? The answer is with sensible immigration priorities from compatible cultures without inherent obstacles to cohesion and integration, followed by a predictable consequence of deportation for any resident failing a basic character test. Failure to uphold our laws resulting in any criminal conviction should be an immediate disqualifier for the privilege of residency.

There is no significant equivalence between domestic violence and fundamental Islamic terrorism. There is, however, a great deal of political opportunism in opposition MP Anne Aly having a crack at the Prime Minister and espousing her feminarchy views on the biggest victims of violence.