In the name of security

On the 5 August, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, announced his tough stance on terrorism. In his speech he was quite adamant about the new, bigger hammer that he intended to raise at the bigger problem of terrorism. Amongst the things he proposed, was a new act declaring illegal any justification of terrorism. Now the question that springs to mind is exactly what would be judged as justification of terrorism? Would broadening of the understanding for the motives behind modern-day terrorism be regarded as justification in some implicit manner - enough to trigger the wrath of the already agitated British Prime Minister?

It should be rather clear from the earlier postings on this WebLog that yours truly sincerely believes the bigger hammer will not solve the bigger problem as the Prime Minister apparently believes and hopes it would. In fact, I am of the conviction that actually attempting to understand the motives of the Islamic terrorist in particular is worth the while in terms of potential avoidance of senseless death and destruction in the future. Would such a view make me a target of Mr Blair's ire?

For one, to argue that lending an ear in a sincere attempt to understand is equal to justification of terrorism or at the least, falling into the intellectual trap of extremism, is as illogical as to argue that having a serious chat with a delinquent is tantamount to condoning his misendeavours. The saying goes that if the shoe fits, wear it. So, am I and others who share the same sentiments on the approach to potential terrorists at risk of wearing Mr Blair's shoe of punishable misconduct under his newly proposed anti-terrorism legislation? I am afraid not.

In fact, I am even more afraid that Mr Blair has turned towards the spiral of coercion of state violence. This spiral starts very subtly indeed, like a worm-hole. In London, state violence started rather abruptly with the shooting by the police of an innocent Brazilian. Normally, it begins with the special curbing of human rights - of course always only temporarily, with the inevitable option to extend. Restriction of public expression is one - Mr Blair is proposing such, of course very qualified, restrictions. Control powers put one steadily on course for the accelerated section of the worm-hole. Mr Blair is also proposing those.

So, perhaps I'll escape Mr Blair's ire but become the laughing stock of his likes for being one of the bleeding hearts who is in constant need of rescue from imminent disaster by the brave and brash that fight his military battles for him. To those I say: Who started the war in the first place? Neither I nor the likes of me, now did I?

Right, Mr Blair would like those of us, who make an attempt to understand, to believe that Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq, or the Palestinian issue, or America's foreign policy with respect to the Middle East. No, if we were to believe Mr Blair, Islamic terrorists just like to blow up things, including themselves, mind you. Well, there is one simplistic world view from an eminent leader of a respectable Western nation.

Since the age of five, I have denounced the existence of Santa Claus, of my own accord. In similar vein, I reject Mr Blair's view of what motivates Islamic terrorists. Before 1948, when Israel unilaterally declared independence after Britain's blunderous exit from the Palistinian region, the level of Arab terrorism was almost negligible compared to what we have had since 1990. Between 1948 and 1990, there was a marked escalation of Islamic terrorism.

Unless the West sincerely sit down and listen to the objections and demands of Islamic voices, including extremists, we are not going to see the end of the spiral of violence. Violence breeds violence. The bigger hammer causes a bigger problem in this case; it does not solve the current problem.

"The promotion and protection of human rights is central to an effective strategy to counter terrorism. Inherent in this statement are two important and inter-related dimensions. Firstly, the need to ensure that measures designed to combat terrorism do not impermissibly limit human rights and fundamental freedoms and, secondly, the recognition that terrorism puts under threat the full enjoyment of civil liberties and human rights." [Human Rights and the Anti-terrorism Bill]

Terrorism destroys and therefore must be condemned. But the plight behind the acts of terrorism always deserves an ear. Greater understanding brings us closer to solutions. Let's stop shouting and start listening. We owe it to the victims on both sides and to our children.

True courage is not found in overwhelming firepower, but rather in humility. But then, Mr Blair and Mr Bush for that matter, should know this - they both claim to be Christians.