Human rights in the wake of terrorism

Abstract

[Introduction]:It's important to begin with the observation that terrorism, which I take to mean causing death or injury to civilians in order to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or international organisation to act in a particular way, is itself a massive violation of human rights. By definition terrorists target non-combatants to achieve political or ideological purposes and thus violate the rights to life and security of innocent people. I also want to note that terrorism is a very complex phenomenon and it's crucial to understand this to be able to work effectively against it. The word 'terrorism' can very easily be used in an omnibus way to mean any activities that we do not approve of, or the activities associated with particular cultures and religions. I heard UK PM Tony Blair yesterday on the radio say, in the wake of the Bali bombings, that the West was facing a 'monolithic' terrorist threat. This might be politically effective rhetoric, but it's dangerously inaccurate. As the Oklahoma bombing showed us so dramatically several years ago, terrorism is a tool of many disaffected groups and terrorists fit no particular profile. The idea of a monolithic terrorism also of course plays into problematic stereotypes of western virtue and oriental menace which themselves can exacerbate the likelihood of violence. Failure to understand the complexity of terrorism and its causes can also lead to a judgment that the protection of human rights is a minor, marginal issue in the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, over the last year we have had enough experience of terrorism to be able to detect a trend in the way governments, the world over, react to this danger. The tendency is to respond to terrorist acts with a lot of tough security talk and to devise measures that require considerable undermining of basic civil liberties and human rights. Show more