Australian Senator Calls for Police Probe of Mosques Mourning Iranian Leader

CANBERRA, Australia — A prominent Australian opposition senator has triggered a fierce national debate over the limits of religious expression and counterterrorism law after suggesting that mosques holding memorial events for Iran’s late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, may have breached Australian terrorism legislation.

James Paterson, the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, said in a series of interviews and social media posts that the Australian Federal Police should investigate whether mourning the Iranian leader — whose Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is listed as a terrorist organization in Australia — constitutes unlawful praise of a proscribed entity.

“The IRGC is a designated terrorist organization in this country,” Paterson told Sky News Australia. “Praising, celebrating, or memorializing its leader may be a criminal offense. The AFP should investigate, and if the law has been broken, it should be enforced.”

The comments have ignited a firestorm, with critics accusing Paterson of demonizing Australian Muslims and weaponizing counterterrorism law for political gain. Supporters, however, have praised his willingness to confront what they describe as a dangerous tolerance of extremist ideology within some religious communities.

At the center of the controversy are several mosques and Islamic community centers across Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane that held memorial gatherings following the announcement of Khamenei’s death. Attendees recited prayers, shared biographical tributes, and expressed grief over the loss of a figure revered by millions of Shia Muslims worldwide.

None of the events, according to video recordings and witness accounts reviewed by The Times, included explicit calls for violence or expressions of support for terrorism as defined by Australian law. But Paterson argues that mourning Khamenei — who commanded the IRGC for decades and oversaw what Western governments describe as a state-sponsored network of militant proxies — crosses a line.

“When you mourn the leader of a terrorist organization, you are effectively endorsing that organization’s objectives and actions,” Paterson said. “That is not protected speech. That is potentially a crime.”

The legal question is complex. Australia’s Criminal Code makes it an offense to “intentionally associate” with a listed terrorist organization or to “recklessly” provide support or resources to such a group. But whether mourning a deceased leader of a proscribed organization — without endorsing violence or providing material support — meets the threshold for prosecution is untested.

“I think this would be a very difficult case to make,” said Dr. Sarah Kendall, a professor of criminal law at the Australian National University. “Memorial services are generally considered religious and cultural expression. Unless someone explicitly praised terrorist acts or called for violence, you would be looking at a serious freedom-of-religion challenge.”

The IRGC was listed as a terrorist organization by Australia in April 2024, following similar designations by the United States, Canada, and several European nations. The designation makes it a criminal offense to provide training, funding, or other support to the group or to publicly “praise” it in a manner that encourages terrorism.

But the law includes exceptions for genuine religious expression and academic discourse. Legal experts say those exceptions would likely shield most mosque memorials from prosecution — unless prosecutors could prove that the events were intended to promote terrorism rather than simply mark a death.

Paterson’s call for an AFP investigation has divided Australia’s political class. Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil, a member of the governing Labor Party, stopped short of dismissing the idea but urged caution.

“Australia has strong counterterrorism laws that are enforced independently by the AFP,” O’Neil said in a statement. “It is not appropriate for politicians to direct investigations. But nor should anyone be above the law.”

The opposition Liberal Party, Paterson’s own political home, has offered measured support. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said that “if the law has been breached, it should be investigated,” while declining to personally endorse the call for a probe.

The Muslim community has reacted with alarm. The Lebanese Muslim Association, which oversees several mosques in Sydney, issued a sharp rebuke, accusing Paterson of “Islamophobic fearmongering.”

“Muslims have the right to mourn the passing of any religious figure, including those with whom governments disagree,” association president Samier Dandan said. “Senator Paterson is using counterterrorism law to intimidate and silence Australian Muslims. That is dangerous and un-Australian.”

The Australian National Imams Council echoed that sentiment, noting that Khamenei was not only a political leader but also a senior Shia cleric and a figure of religious significance for millions of believers worldwide.

“One can mourn a religious leader without endorsing every political action taken by their government,” the council said in a statement. “Australian Muslims should not be forced to prove their loyalty every time they gather to pray.”

Paterson’s comments follow weeks of heightened public debate over memorial events for Khamenei. Several conservative commentators had already raised concerns about gatherings they described as “celebrations of a terrorist leader.” Paterson’s call for police action represents the most formal political response to date.

The AFP has not confirmed whether any investigation has been launched, citing its policy of not commenting on potential or ongoing investigations. However, a spokesperson said the agency “takes all allegations of terrorist-related activity seriously and assesses each matter on its merits.”

Civil liberties advocates have warned that even an investigation — regardless of outcome — could have a chilling effect on religious freedom. “Just the threat of an AFP probe will make some communities think twice before holding religious gatherings,” said Kieran Pender, a senior lawyer with the Australian Human Rights Law Centre. “That is precisely the kind of self-censorship that free speech protections are meant to prevent.”

The debate has also drawn international attention. The Iranian government, through its official news agency, condemned Paterson’s comments as “Islamophobic interference” and called on the Australian government to “apologize to the Muslim community.”

In London, the Islamic Human Rights Commission issued a statement expressing “deep concern” over what it called “the criminalization of religious mourning.”

Paterson has rejected such criticism as “moral equivalence.” In a lengthy post on X, he argued that “the same people who defend mourning Khamenei would never defend mourning Osama bin Laden. There is no difference. Both led terrorist organizations. Both are responsible for mass murder.”

Critics point out that Khamenei, unlike bin Laden, was the head of a sovereign state — one with which Australia maintains diplomatic relations. Iran’s ambassador to Australia remains accredited in Canberra. Australian trade officials continue to engage with Iranian counterparts on limited issues.

“That context matters,” said Dr. Kendall, the law professor. “You cannot treat the leader of a foreign state exactly the same as the leader of a non-state terrorist network. International law does not work that way.”

The controversy shows no sign of abating. With federal elections expected within the next eighteen months, both major parties are calculating the political risks and rewards of engaging with Paterson’s call.

For the Labor government, the challenge is balancing national security credibility with multicultural outreach. For the opposition Liberals, the challenge is harnessing conservative concern without alienating moderate voters.

For Australian Muslims, the debate has reopened familiar wounds. Many recall the years following September 11, when community leaders repeatedly felt compelled to denounce terrorism and prove their loyalty. Some worry that a new cycle of suspicion is beginning.

“We are tired of being treated as suspects,” said Fatima El-Masri, a community organizer in western Sydney. “We mourn our dead. We pray for our leaders. And then we are told we might be criminals. When does it end?”

Paterson shows no sign of retreating. In a follow-up interview, he doubled down, saying that “if Australian law is not enforced against those who praise terrorist leaders, then what is the point of the law?”

The AFP has not announced any action. The mosques in question have not canceled further events. The debate continues.

But one question lingers in the Australian political air: Where is the line between religious mourning and unlawful praise? And who gets to draw it?