Fighting Fire
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, warns that fighting terrorism could worsen global tensions and is a threat to human rights. We have seen examples in the New Zealand Court. The Ahmed Zaoui case has received much press attention as a human rights issue and test of the New Zealand version of "Homeland Security" laws.
When the State starts to take prisoners, a de facto state of war exists. It is the definition of what is legal that shifts, the Law shifts to accomodate new positions, and in the process tramples on human rights. It changes nothing, except the level of intrusion that the State may use to fight hidden enemies.
Political evolution is a slow process. War evolves too quickly for adequately or carefully crafted legislation. It may need an expiry date.
We must ask if we live in a world more sensitive to potential atrocity?
Next, we must ask, is this sensitivity eliciting responses that are not well evolved with only short term benefit.
The freedom enjoyed by Western countries has been reduced by edict in response to terrorism. Without the terrorism, Western Governemnts could not achieve such authority.
So one must wonder, what is the point of terrorism? To bring the Western countries into a state of seige.
Do we then accept that the state of seige becomes a way of life, rather than a response to a specific danger?
We have to wonder, if we had a real terrorist in New Zealand prison, if our laws encourage future terrorist atrocity or prevent them?
No comments:
Post a Comment