Isabelle Lane, Loreto Mandeville Hall

We have more to fear from the State than from Terrorists

Today’s political climate is one of apprehension and anxiety over the evolving threat of terrorism, a global phenomenon the media and our politicians have convinced us is lurking invisible in the shadows, willing and increasingly able to strike us and our prized ‘Australian way of life’ at any moment. We have become accustomed to the idea of this constant sinister presence, with phrases such as Prime Minister John Howard’s “be alert but not alarmed” ringing in our ears and the controversial $6 million(i) tax-payer funded, “report possible signs of terrorism to the National Security Hotline”, advertising campaign, encouraging citizens to be suspicious even of seemingly inconspicuous behaviour. However, despite this focus on “the war on terror”, recent events such as Australia’s introduction of controversial anti-terror legislation have raised other issues such as government encroachment upon civil liberties. Thus, the question of whether “we have more to fear from the State than from terrorists” is a pertinent and contentious one, and in answering this we must consider the different effects both these groups have on our lives.

Terrorism is born out of, and is capable of inducing, many sentiments including fear and hate. Attacks such as September 11 2001 and the 2002 Bali bombing are evidence of the ability of terrorists to cause great chaos and tragedy. Terrorists take advantage of the vulnerability of the interdependent and highly technological world we live in today, and use violence to gain recognition for or enforce what is usually a political agenda. In his book Terrorism and Civil Strife, Chris Coker confirms that “It is now very easy for a group or even a single individual to inflict great damage on society at relatively little cost to themselves”. And as Coker contends, it is precisely this ease and anonymous “use of force by terrorists” that induces such fear in the community and “represents one of the most serious threats to international order”. However, though the actions of terrorists are highly destructive and frightening, so to have we seen and continue to see examples of the horrendous atrocities and tyrannies perpetrated by corrupt States. Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that terrorism is not exclusively employed by terrorists. For example in France, from the period of 1793-4 Robespierre’s Jacobin government legalised the use of “Terror” as a political instrument to repress opposing revolutionary groups, with Robespierre claiming that “Terror is only justice that is prompt, severe and inflexible”.

 Official figures show that 2,819 people(ii) died in the terrorist act which altered the world more profoundly then any other, September 11 2002. However, though it occurred more then 60 years ago the Holocaust remains indelibly etched into the world’s psyche, a chilling reminder of the atrocities a State is capable of. During the period of 1937-1945, the Nazi regime of Hitler’s Germany was responsible for the death of almost 6 million Jews(iii) or one third of the world’s Jewish population. Such comparisons serve to effectively illustrate the difference in scale of the power of terrorists and the State. It seems apparent that while terrorists are highly effective in causing sudden, severe and localised catastrophe and panic, ultimately it is the State who is the more powerful and influential body and thus has the greater capacity to cause long term oppression and subjugation of an entire people and every facet of life, as was seen in the rigid social, economic and political control of Mao’s communist China and in the horrific genocide under the Kampuchean government of Pol Pot, which involved the “psychological reconstruction”(iv) of political opponents, the murder of all citizens with middle class origins as well as the removal of 3 million people to the countryside. Coker states that “by the time the government collapsed in 1979, 1.4 million people (a fifth of the population) had been killed.” However, many States are democratic and do have some form of accountability; they are elected by the people and their decisions are influenced by pressure groups, economic and political considerations etc. whereas terrorist groups cannot be controlled in this way. Ultimately though, we have more to fear from a corrupt State then we do a terrorist organisation, for such large scale atrocities as those of Pol Pot’s regime and the Holocaust, would simply not be achievable by a disparate, guerrilla-type terror organisations.

Australia has responded to the worlds increasing disquiet over terrorism by recently introducing radical new anti-terror legislation. However, it is indeed ironic that these laws, purportedly required to protect our liberal culture and “Australian way of life”, have been strongly criticised by many experts as dangerously encroaching upon fundamental civil liberties. Human Rights Watch Asia director Brad Adams described the laws as “a shocking departure from Australia's proud tradition of protecting individuals from an overly powerful state"(v), and indeed it seems that we as a society have become dangerously apathetic and complacent about our fundamental rights and liberties, because as Justice Einfeld QC warns, the new laws “are a Pandora's Box of possible abuses if used incorrectly”. Justice Einfield’s question “How far do we allow ourselves to be led away from fundamental liberal and democratic tenets in the name of fighting terrorism?"(vi) is indeed a poignant one, for although we Australians undoubtedly view our society and our government as liberal and democratic, the introduction of such laws that blatantly undermine basic safeguards of our freedoms and civil liberties may be the start of a slippery slope on which we gradually find our “Australian way of life” being replaced and undermined by a ‘culture of fear’ induced by a reactionary government that has as Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Dr Ameer Ali confirms “created unnecessary panic and alarm in the community,"

Historical and current events have shown us that ultimately a corrupt government is capable of greater destruction then a terrorist group. Although terrorists can harm and kill people with their exhibitionistic displays of violence and horror, we must ask ourselves whether these scare-tactics are really able to significantly curtail and destroy the way of life of an entire people to the same extent that State induced atrocities such as the Holocaust have. As Australian and global citizens we have a responsibility to vigilantly guard the things most dear to us, our human rights and democratic values and to keep our governments accountable, for as Thomas Jefferson said “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Bibliography
Coker, Christopher, Terrorism and Civil Strife, Aladdin Books, London, 1988
http://www.deathcamps.info/FAQ.htm (12/4/2006)http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm (12/4/2006)http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/D1197555B9B04E9FCA256FAB00168903?OpenDocument (14/4/2006)
Fed: Former judge attacks anti-terror laws ,AAP Australian National News Wire, Mar 20, 2006
NSW: Civil libertarians join criticism of proposed terror laws, AAP Australian National News Wire, Oct 13, 2005

Endnotes
i http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/D119755 5B9B04E9FCA256FAB00168903?OpenDocument (14/4/2006)ii http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm (12/4/2006)iii http://www.deathcamps.info/FAQ.htm (12/4/2006)
iv P 9, Coker, Christopher, Terrorism and Civil Strife, Aladdin Books, London, 1988
v NSW: Civil libertarians join criticism of proposed terror laws, AAP Australian National News Wire, Oct 13, 2005
vi Fed: Former judge attacks anti-terror laws ,AAP Australian National News Wire, Mar 20, 2006