Session 12(a): Terrorism 3

Concurrent Session 12a: Terrorism 3
Chair: Lois Drawmer

Terrorism and Human Rights: Confronting Evil and Remaining Good
Shlomit Harrosh
Philosophy Faculty, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom

A Manichean worldview governs the war on terror, labeling terrorists as evil while regarding their victims as good. Yet as the graphic accounts of prisoner abuse in Guantánamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib remind us, goodness cannot be taken for granted: in times of crisis, values and norms can be corrupted. This paper address the question of how an open, democratic society is to confront the evil of terrorism while remaining good. I focus on the recent public debate in Britain regarding the curtailing of human rights in the face of mounting threats to national security from domestic and foreign terrorists. I begin by outlining the two opposing outlooks dominating current debate. The pragmatic view regards national security as firstly a matter of protecting lives, and moral obligations to non-nationals are restricted by the extent to which the other side plays by the same rules. According to the idealistic view, national security is a matter not simply of survival but of preserving society’s core moral and political values. On this view, Britain’s moral obligations towards terrorists and their suspected helpers obtain irrespective of reciprocity. I then examine the various arguments put forward in the public sphere by proponents and opponents of the two views. Based on the distinction between survival and security, I propose an alternating two-tiered approach to the question of balancing human rights with personal and national security. I show that this model is supported by the historical and conceptual links between terrorism and human rights. I conclude by using this model to examine specific counter-terrorist proposals involving human rights violation. Though respect for human rights can cost lives, I argue that if an open and democratic society is to maintain its moral integrity and political tradition, this is a risk it must take.

Since Mohammad Sidique Khan, a teacher from the UK, appeared posthumously in the much viewed post 7/7 suicide bomber video, the links between education, terror and posturing are being drawn. We seek to make these links at a global level of meta-posturing through issues of representation, gesture and posture of international leaders. In this paper we explore the concept of posturing in performance drawing on a number of theoretical traditions including queer theory, Marxism, ‘in-yer-face-Theatre’ (Sierz 2002) and the work of Modern British Artists (Hirst, Emin). Using examples from UK media and current education policy we examine how teachers are being portrayed as evil postures in an increasingly neo-conservative climate.
Using contemporary theatre and performance, in particular, Johnston (2005) Bullet Boy, Madonna, Ridley (2004) Mercury Fur, and Shakespeare, through the filter of contemporary culture, we explore the posturing of evil, in the context of contemporary, live, and recorded drama. We apply this to youth improvised drama in inner London secondary schools, which we find to be influenced by the masculinity of gangsta rap, and the queer culture androgyny of female rap artists, resulting in an ultimately nihilistic Theatre of the Depressed.
We critique the ways in which performance and performativity are currently used by new imperialisms to regulate public space.  Rather, we argue that transgressive performance in ‘uncontrolled’ public space is potentially transformative and presents an opportunity for drama educators to renew educational use of Boal and Brecht and Marxist theories towards a Theatre of Revolutionary Change.

As is well known, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and those advocating and conducting the so-called “War on Terror” have adopted the concept of evil and the corresponding metaphysical construct to define both those engaged in terrorism and the activities they undertake. In accord with the work of Friedrich Nietzsche I adopt a genealogical approach to analyzing the rhetoric of the “war on terror.” In analyzing who benefits and how they benefit from the use of this rhetoric, my paper explains both how any ascription of evil serves as a justification for annihilation and how it forgives the failure of those conducting this war to accomplish their objective. Ultimately, if the rhetoric of the evil other is successful, it fosters support for extreme measures in pursuit of the eradication of evil. Since part of the rhetoric relies on the general picture of the earth as fallen, however, it also perpetuates the idea that evil can never be eradicated. This rhetoric thus generates and perpetuates a hierarchy, but not based upon success or failure of the related war. Instead, those in power gain support by demonstrating their commitment to the metaphysical construct that supports the ascription of evil in the first place: in short, they are judged on their faith, not their efficacy. As a result the more “evil” appears to be a problem, the more the power base of those fighting “evil” is solidified. The more ineffectual human action viz. eradication of the evil other, the more faith is deemed necessary by the believing populace. This paper will illuminate not only the rhetoric of the present war on terror, but also such historical-political moments as the counter-Reformation, the rise of Robbespierre, the McCarthyism and the Cultural Revolution in China.