Australian Activist Drew Pavlou Calls for Deportation of "Worst of the Worst" Extremists

Australian political activist Drew Pavlou has sparked debate with a recent social media post advocating for the denaturalization and deportation of individuals deemed "pro-Hamas and pro-ISIS Islamist extremists" in Australia. Pavlou, known for his provocative activism and strong stance against perceived Chinese Communist Party influence, suggested that targeting the "worst of the worst" would significantly improve social cohesion, citing Singapore's approach as a model.

In his tweet, Pavlou stated, "I think if you denaturalised and deported the 20 worst pro-Hamas and pro-ISIS Islamist extremists in Australia it would go a long way to solving our problems with social cohesion. I’m not even talking about mass deport, just the worst of the worst. This is what Singapore does. It sends a message that the society does not tolerate this stuff." This direct call highlights a contentious area of national security and citizenship law.

Australia has legislation allowing for the revocation of citizenship, particularly for dual nationals involved in terrorism-related activities. The Australian Citizenship Act was amended in 2015 to permit the stripping of citizenship from dual citizens engaged in conduct inconsistent with their allegiance to Australia, such as participating in terrorist acts or serving a declared terrorist organization overseas. These laws were further strengthened, removing the requirement for a minimum six-year prison sentence for conviction-based deprivation. However, a key condition remains that a person cannot be rendered stateless.

The legal framework around denaturalization and deportation in Australia has been a subject of ongoing debate, with concerns raised by legal experts and human rights advocates regarding due process, the risk of statelessness, and the effectiveness of such measures in enhancing national security. Critics argue that deporting individuals may simply shift the security threat elsewhere rather than neutralizing it.

Singapore, referenced by Pavlou, maintains stringent laws regarding national security and immigration. Its Immigration Act and Internal Security Act grant broad powers to the government, including the ability to deport foreign nationals and, in certain circumstances, to revoke citizenship for acts deemed prejudicial to public order or national security. This approach often emphasizes swift action to maintain social stability and security.

Pavlou himself has a history of controversial activism, including protests against the Chinese government and various political engagements, which have often drawn national attention. His latest suggestion aligns with a hardline approach to national security, emphasizing immediate removal of perceived threats to societal harmony. The feasibility and broader implications of such a policy, particularly in a democratic context like Australia, remain complex and subject to legal and ethical scrutiny.