# Maltreatment of Potential Terrorism Victims (Due to Possible Bystander Harm) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maltreatment-of-potential-terrorism-victims-due-to-possible-bystander-harm/792799 "2017-08-04T19:55:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maltreatment-of-potential-terrorism-victims-due-to-possible-bystander-harm/792799/1 "2017-08-04T19:55:59Z")
[Bondi synagogue ban over terrorism risk leaves Jewish community shocked and furious](http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Facebook) > [@](#): > > A LOCAL council has banned the construction of a synagogue in Bondi because it could be a terrorist target, in a shock move that religious leaders say has caved in to Islamic extremism and created a dangerous precedent. > > The decision, which has rocked the longstanding Jewish community in the iconic suburb, was upheld in court this week as the nation reeled from the alleged airline terror threat and debate raged over increased security measures at airports and other public places. > > The Land and Environment Court backed the decision by Waverley Council to prohibit the construction of the synagogue in Wellington St, Bondi — just a few hundred metres from Australia’s most famous beach — because it was too much of a security risk for users and local residents. > > Jewish leaders are shocked the decision appears to suggest they cannot freely practice their religion because they are the target of hate by Islamist extremists — and that the council has used their own risk assessment of the threat posed by IS against it. > [@](#): > > Ironically, the council and the Land and Environment Court appeared to use the proposal’s own risk assessment and security measures in the proposed design — including using setback buildings and blast walls — as evidence the site was too much of a security risk. > > Yet in a classic catch-22, the council also said if the design was changed to boost security this would be unacceptable because it would be too unsightly. > > “The proposed development should be refused as the site is not suitable for the proposed synagogue use as the Preliminary Threat and Risk Analysis relied on by the Applicant raises concerns as to the safety and security of future users of the Synagogue, nearby residents, motorists and pedestrians in Wellington Street and the physical measures proposed to deal with the identified threats will have an unacceptable impact on the streetscape and adjoining properties.” ISTM that while the council has something of a point, and the risk to locals is probably increased by having that building there, on a societal level, this type of decision both gives terrorists a free victory and penalizes potential victims by virtue of their potential victim status. Troubling. By that logic you could theoretically ban any and all Jewish establishments altogether, since they could all be targeted by terrorists (ala the French attacks). In a sense, it’s as if some terrorists announced “unless you discriminate against this group we’ll attack all of you”, and the question is whether you go along with that demand. I wouldn’t think so. Some discussion at [Volokh](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/03/no-building-permit-for-australian-synagogue-it-might-draw-isis-supporter-terrorist-attacks-and-endanger-neighbors/?utm_term=.d641e75a69dd) (which is where I initially saw this). ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2017, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maltreatment-of-potential-terrorism-victims-due-to-possible-bystander-harm/792799/2 "2017-08-05T02:32:45Z")
If attacks on synagogues was a huge problem in Australia, I could see the logic in zoning new synagogues into areas where they would be more easily protected (though only if such zoning wasn’t so onerous as to prevent the synagogue from being built at all). But going through a list of terror attacks in Australia, I don’t see any deadly attacks on Synagogues, or any other Jewish institutions. Googling, the last attack on a synagogue that I can find is in 2006, in which some teenagers broke some windows. That’s certainly bad, but some windows being broken every ten years hardly seems such a dire enough threat as to compromise the religious liberty of Australias Jews. That said, the OPs article kinda breezes through the fact that the security concerns were just one bullet point in the list of more common zoning issues that the town council used. So I’m not sure how much it was the real issue, how much might’ve been due to anti-semitism, and how much might’ve just been the locals not wanting their views blocked or heavy Friday night traffic or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maltreatment-of-potential-terrorism-victims-due-to-possible-bystander-harm/792799/3 "2017-08-07T12:22:39Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > That said, the OPs article kinda breezes through the fact that the security concerns were just one bullet point in the list of more common zoning issues that the town council used. So I’m not sure how much it was the real issue, how much might’ve been due to anti-semitism, and how much might’ve just been the locals not wanting their views blocked or heavy Friday night traffic or whatever. Even if you assume that the article skews the issue (which I wouldn’t just assume) the specific issue of potentially being a terror victim was tested in court and upheld. So the courts have apparently ruled that this is sufficient as a valid basis for denying the permit. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maltreatment-of-potential-terrorism-victims-due-to-possible-bystander-harm/792799/4 "2017-08-07T12:51:52Z")
If it’s true that the synagogue was denied due to concerns about it being a target, then I agree that this is a terrible idea and essentially giving in to the desires of extremists. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maltreatment-of-potential-terrorism-victims-due-to-possible-bystander-harm/792799/5 "2017-08-07T17:49:32Z")
Sounds akin to passing a law banning people from owning luxury items, for fear that they wold become victims of robbery. In fact, you might as well pass a law banning minority people from going into a white supremacist neighborhood. They might get lynched! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maltreatment-of-potential-terrorism-victims-due-to-possible-bystander-harm/792799/6 "2017-08-10T15:34:40Z")
There is a bit more going on here than Volokh mentions, which is a bit unusual for him. The issue is that [the synagogue _itself_ wanted to put up high walls for security purposes](https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/597fbf62e4b058596cba8e75). It submitted a sort of half-assed risk assessment in support of its application, since blast walls are going to be a bit out of place on a residential street. At that point, the council said, “what about the safety of people _outside_ the synagogue?” The synagogue then said, well, we’ll just build thicker building walls and forget the security walls. But they themselves had already raised the security issue - not the local council. So it wasn’t unreasonable for the council and the reviewing court to consider whether there was sufficient evidence that security risks could be addressed. Buddhist temples don’t have to address security in land use applications because they don’t identify their temples as security risks in their applications. Anyway, this seems to be more of an administrative proceeding than anything else, so it’s likely that discrimination issues will have to be addressed by a reviewing court with more general jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maltreatment-of-potential-terrorism-victims-due-to-possible-bystander-harm/792799/7 "2017-08-11T05:06:03Z")
I could actually see an argument like this work if this was some sort of common occurrence in the area, and intended as a temporary restriction until this was finished. I could see requiring a lot of extra fortifications, or even creating a special area that’s more protected. But giving in to this when there’s no current threat is dumb. It’s even dumber than the Comedy Central position on South Park. At least there the one guy was making threats, even if it was unlikely he could pull them off. Of course, there are other concerns, and one has to be careful of the news outrage bias. You report on the part that is most outrageous, and leave out the rest. It’s the same bias that leads people to think there are so many “SJWs” around, or that all conservatives/liberals are evil. If RNATB is right, then it sounds like bureaucratic nonsense, which I oppose, but is far less of a problem. Just because something is brought up should not count as a reason to change the outcome if the thing brought up is shown to be unfounded. Sure, maybe the specific plan with the blast shield should be stopped, but there’s no reason that should halt the entire synagogue unless it’s the people building it who don’t want to build without such protections. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2017, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maltreatment-of-potential-terrorism-victims-due-to-possible-bystander-harm/792799/8 "2017-08-13T22:34:01Z")
It’s worth noting there’s a lot of public handwringing over “Muslims” in Australia but the Jewish population here is so small that they don’t have the same profile as in the US - sure, you’ve got nutters and idiots who go on about zionist conspiracies, but they’re small in number and everyone agrees they’re nutters. I hear a LOT of casual racism directed at Muslims here; I don’t think I’ve ever heard any directed at Jewish people. (That’s not so say there isn’t, just that I’ve never encountered any) The council’s in a tough position, though - no decision they make was going to leave everyone happy.