Passports for Terrorists?

There are some phrases that are designed to soften the truth.

“ISIS brides” is one of them.

It sounds almost romantic. Naïve young women, swept off their feet, made poor choices, now stranded in a far-off land.

Rubbish.

As Peta Credlin rightly points out in her recent editorial (video linked below), these were not starry-eyed tourists. They were co-conspirators. They left Australia willingly. They joined Islamic State. They married terrorists. Some had children to terrorists. They embedded themselves in a movement dedicated to the destruction of the West — including Australia.

And now, with ISIS militarily crushed, they want to come home.

The Law – and the Convenient Amnesia

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been at pains to suggest that his hands are tied.

He says the government is “simply applying Australian law.”
He says they are “not assisting” these women.
He says passports must be issued because “that’s the law.”

Except — as Credlin outlines — that’s not the whole law.

Under the Australian Passports Act 2005, Section 14 gives the minister power to refuse or cancel a passport if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person might prejudice the security of Australia.

Let me repeat that:

If they are a security risk — the passport can be refused.

So the claim that the government has “no choice” is, at best, incomplete. At worst, it is deliberately misleading.

If a person who voluntarily joined ISIS, lived among hardened extremists for years, and supported a listed terrorist organisation does not meet the definition of a potential security risk — who does?

“Not Assisting” – While Issuing Passports

Here’s where it gets truly absurd.

We are told the government is “not involved” in repatriation.

Yet passports have been issued.

DNA tests reportedly conducted.

Delegations allegedly sent.

According to the editorial, encrypted messages from within the camps claim:

“The Australian government has concluded DNA tests for the sisters and children, issued Australian passports for them, and sent a delegation to accompany the families back to Australia.”

Not assisting?

If that’s not assistance, what is?

You cannot claim neutrality while actively greasing the wheels of return.

One Barred – The Rest Welcome?

Here’s another curious detail.

The government has used its powers to bar one — just one — of these ISIS women from returning.

Which proves something important:
The power exists.

If the Prime Minister can bar one, he could bar the lot.

But he hasn’t.

Why?

That is the question most Australians are asking — especially in the wake of the recent ISIS-linked terror atrocity at Bondi Beach. Public sentiment is not ambiguous. Australians are deeply uneasy about importing individuals who aligned themselves with a terrorist death cult.

And yet the government tiptoes.

Political Courage or Political Calculation?

Let’s be frank.

There are key Labor electorates with significant Muslim populations. No government wants to inflame community tensions. No government wants to lose seats.

But national security should not be a factional calculation.

When leadership becomes a balancing act between electoral arithmetic and public safety, trust erodes.

The Prime Minister’s carefully crafted phrases — “not assisting”, “following the law”, “no breach of Australian law” — ring hollow when the very legislation he cites provides the discretion to refuse.

That’s not legal compulsion.

That’s political choice.

The Hard Truth

Women can be radicalised.
Teenagers can be radicalised.
Mothers can be radicalised.

The idea that gender somehow neutralises extremist ideology is naïve in the extreme. As counter-terror experts have warned, anyone who willingly travelled to join ISIS is, at minimum, deeply compromised.

If you don’t want terrorism in Australia, you do not import those who supported it.

This is not about vengeance. It is about prudence. It is about protecting Australians who did not abandon their country to join a terrorist state.

Leadership requires clarity.
It requires honesty.
And sometimes it requires saying no — even when it is politically uncomfortable.

At the moment, what we are seeing is not strength.

It is weasel words wrapped around a deeply controversial decision.

You can watch Peta Credlin’s full editorial below. It is worth your time.

Because Australians deserve straight answers — not semantic gymnastics.

And they certainly deserve a government that puts their safety first.