Gibburt

The modern interpretation of the word “terrorism” confuses me sometimes. It seems that nowadays, terrorism is considered an action against the actual victims of violence. This used to be called (mass)murder. “Terrorism” is the “-ism” involving “terror,” but I may – as usual – be oversimplifying things or overly conservative with regards to etymology. In my mind, the goal of a “terrorist” is not to kill people (that’s ‘just’ a means to an end), but rather to cause “intense fear, fright or dread” [OED] in the people that were not killed. If you, like me, have such an archaic understanding of the term, you will find that the most accomplished terrorists of the western world nowadays are “our own” politicians and media.

I am perfectly aware that such observations have become platitudes amongst people that actually take time out to think about the state of the world every now and again. However, it seems that lawmakers and diplomats are engaged in a competition to see who can sink deepest in their reactionary dealings with terrorism. There was an incident in Dutch politics that I intended to blog about a few months ago (but did not, because I have been slacking in the blogosphere). I was reminded of this incident by recent events. I will discuss both.

Every year, on the third Tuesday of September, the head of state (i.e. our queen) addresses both houses of the Dutch government. This event is very much like Britain’s royal’s annual address to the House of Lords and the American State of the Union Address. The week(s) after that event, parliament debates the plans presented in the queen’s address. During these debates, Dutch politician and (in)famous anti-Islamist Geert Wilders brought up his plans (again) for taking away from convicted criminals their Dutch nationality, if they have a double nationality. This idea is considered unfair by many, because Moroccans simply can not give up their Moroccan nationality. Moroccan law simply does not allow it. Mark Rutte, a politician with Wilders’ previous and more moderate right-wing party, the VVD, pointed out this argument to him. Wilders responded by asking Rutte why the latter had voted for the motion to take the Dutch nationality from people convicted of terrorism (when they have a double nationality). I had missed the debate he referred to, but lo-and-behold; not only was this debated, it became law four years earlier. Dutch law states that all Dutch citizens are deemed to know it. This is simply a legislative premise, so that the “I did not know it was illegal” style of defence can not be used in criminal court. Trying to be a good Dutch citizen, I decided to try and expand my knowledge of the law. Aforementioned law exists; anyone with a double nationality – even Moroccans that have tried to give up their Moroccan nationality – will lose their Dutch nationality when they are convicted of terrorism. My problem understanding this law: nowhere did I find a definition or description of what constitutes terrorism!

I was reminded of my confusion because of the British government’s response to the Icelandic banking fiasco. Iceland (and Icesave and Landsbankii and …) were put on Britain’s magic list of terrorists. Quite obviously, this was a “clever” trick to be able to seize Icelandic assets in a somewhat panicky response to British citizens losing their savings. “Alright,” you may say, “everyone knows this; it is old news, so what are you bringing this up for now?” Besides illustrating the point that lawmakers and diplomats seem intentionally sloppy with terrorism law so that it can be invoked in the broadest sense whenever it is deemed useful, it shows that very little effort is made to see how laws and international treaties fit together. People from Visa Waiver Program countries were required to fill out a green form prior to entering the United States of America. This usually happened in the plane. Recently, however, the Department of Homeland Security decided even citizens of VWP countries should register further in advance. There now is a web form that has to be filled out 72 hours in advance. I had a look to see whether it changed much and saw good old question ‘C’:

Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved , in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?

It may very well be the case that I simply lack the intellectual capacity, but it is puzzling to put all this together. Really, by any logic, anyone that has at some point had an account with an Icelandic bank is guilty of financing terrorism, so they should tick ‘yes’ for this question. It turns out that a few colleagues and friends of mine are, in fact, terrorists. It is true what they say: You never know where the terrorist danger comes from, it may be as close as friends and family!

Filed under: Politics, WtF by Philip Hölzenspies | Social tagging: terror