A shoutout to Australian writer Shaun Tan (mainly because I was reading The Arrival on my way across the USA and realised how much I enjoyed it and also because I really have nothing useful/interesting to tell yous about and reckon you've had your fill of terrorism talk for some time)
Guardian article about Mr. Tan
A free short story. It's delightful.
Enjoy.
4.8.09
Terror, Islam and Australia
Today's (and yesterday's) main terrorism news is, of course, the arrest of some men in Melbourne. They have been charged with plotting to attack various army bases in Australia. The interesting thing here, in terms of terrorism discourse, is that overseas news media have adopted different approaches to describing the suspects but almost all focus on their ethnicities:
The BBC is calling them: "Australian nationals of Somali and Lebanese descent".
The Scotsman calls them "Somali extremists" involved in an "al-Qaida plot" of "terrorism". That the people were (are) Australian is not the lead of their story (though it is mentioned later in the piece)
The Washington Post called it a planned "suicide attack" but its headline is: "Australia charges three men on terrorism offences". It is, however, one of the few media sources to mention that the group that the suspects are said to be linked with (Somalia's Al Shabaab) is not banned under Australian law. This means interacting with that group is legal.
But that's not the point I'm trying to make here (assuming I have a point somewhere). Rather that the arrested men were/are Australian by any sense of the term. Yet it is their ethnicities and "origins" that are focused upon in almost all media reports. Would it be the same if they happened to be of German/Danish descent? Possibly not.
Empirical evidence since 11 September, 2001 shows that most people arrested under terrorism charges have been of Muslim background. This doesn't mean that the background has to be foregrounded when describing the suspects. Taking an example from history, "terrorism" was used interchangeably with "Irish terrorism" and "Republican terrorism" in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. This had the effect of "terroristizing" the Irish, no matter a large percentage of them would never support or be in favour of using violence. To be Irish--especially Irish catholic--was considered to be a potential or actual terrorist or a supporter of terrorism. At the same time, this framing allowed for those who used violence to represent themselves as victims (a tactic that worked especially well with the IRA fundraising in the United States). Yet another effect was that other forms of violence (e.g. Loyalist terrorism, in the case of Northern Ireland) was exempt from the label of "terrorism", leading to discontent on the part of those who felt (often unfairly) that they were categorised as "terrorist" while other groups got off lightly.
There is no similar parallel today (yet) though the effects of associating countries/backgrounds/religions with violence is becoming distressingly common and will, I would argue, lead to divisions in society and being wary of differences to the detriment of social cohesion. This is especially worrying in a multicultural country like Australia where multiculturalism has been explicitly promoted as a goal to aim for.
It's not like the Islamic community in Australia's had it easy recently.
The BBC is calling them: "Australian nationals of Somali and Lebanese descent".
The Scotsman calls them "Somali extremists" involved in an "al-Qaida plot" of "terrorism". That the people were (are) Australian is not the lead of their story (though it is mentioned later in the piece)
The Washington Post called it a planned "suicide attack" but its headline is: "Australia charges three men on terrorism offences". It is, however, one of the few media sources to mention that the group that the suspects are said to be linked with (Somalia's Al Shabaab) is not banned under Australian law. This means interacting with that group is legal.
But that's not the point I'm trying to make here (assuming I have a point somewhere). Rather that the arrested men were/are Australian by any sense of the term. Yet it is their ethnicities and "origins" that are focused upon in almost all media reports. Would it be the same if they happened to be of German/Danish descent? Possibly not.
Empirical evidence since 11 September, 2001 shows that most people arrested under terrorism charges have been of Muslim background. This doesn't mean that the background has to be foregrounded when describing the suspects. Taking an example from history, "terrorism" was used interchangeably with "Irish terrorism" and "Republican terrorism" in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. This had the effect of "terroristizing" the Irish, no matter a large percentage of them would never support or be in favour of using violence. To be Irish--especially Irish catholic--was considered to be a potential or actual terrorist or a supporter of terrorism. At the same time, this framing allowed for those who used violence to represent themselves as victims (a tactic that worked especially well with the IRA fundraising in the United States). Yet another effect was that other forms of violence (e.g. Loyalist terrorism, in the case of Northern Ireland) was exempt from the label of "terrorism", leading to discontent on the part of those who felt (often unfairly) that they were categorised as "terrorist" while other groups got off lightly.
There is no similar parallel today (yet) though the effects of associating countries/backgrounds/religions with violence is becoming distressingly common and will, I would argue, lead to divisions in society and being wary of differences to the detriment of social cohesion. This is especially worrying in a multicultural country like Australia where multiculturalism has been explicitly promoted as a goal to aim for.
It's not like the Islamic community in Australia's had it easy recently.
3.8.09
Terrorism during the World Cup?
Sorry about the disappearance, dear reader(s). I'm back in my part of the world (or what has been my part of the world for the past six years), pretty much guaranteed a full-time gig for the next year (hurrah? I keep thinking that things will still fall apart at the last moment) and busily attempting to revise/format/amend the thesis so I may defend it before the end of the month. In other words, I don't expect to write more coherent posts for the upcoming few weeks. However, I do expect to be around more often/post more regularly than over the summer even if those posts are of the "here's an article. read it" variety (of which today's is one).
Today: there may be terrorist action during next year's footy World Cup. "World Cup Teams Could Attract Terrorists", says FourFourTwo (football mag). Full story here.
Apparently South African police have been prepping against biological, chemical and radiological attacks.
I'd be more wary of the vuvuzela factor (noise, someone cracking and taking apart the vuvuzela blowers with their bare hands, Cantona-style action from the players and so on)
Today: there may be terrorist action during next year's footy World Cup. "World Cup Teams Could Attract Terrorists", says FourFourTwo (football mag). Full story here.
Apparently South African police have been prepping against biological, chemical and radiological attacks.
I'd be more wary of the vuvuzela factor (noise, someone cracking and taking apart the vuvuzela blowers with their bare hands, Cantona-style action from the players and so on)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
