NSW police's surveillance of returning IS-linked families is a necessary evil, but it covertly undermines Australia’s claim to be a welcoming society.

Some argue that monitoring returning individuals is crucial for preventing future terrorist attacks. They believe that without such measures, there could be significant risks to public safety. Critics contend that these families might have valuable information about IS operations, and failing to monitor them could leave society vulnerable.

The risk lies in the potential backlash against policies seen as overly harsh or discriminatory towards returning individuals who may need rehabilitation rather than surveillance.

Banks are being encouraged to support struggling customers, possibly creating a conflict where financial institutions prioritize government directives over customer welfare.

The long-term impact of such policies could be a divided community where fear overshadows hope for rehabilitation. It may lead to further radicalization among those who feel they have no path back into society. How will this affect future generations?

This decision is likely to polarize public opinion, with some backing the need for security measures while others argue it unfairly stigmatizes returning individuals and families. Tribalism will play a significant role in shaping reactions, with nationalists supporting strict surveillance and human rights advocates pushing for more lenient policies. Who gets to decide?