Confronting false dichotomies - Part 4:

Countering terrorism and freedom of expression

Continued from yesterday

(e) Need to overcome ‘false dichotomies’ in order to serve the ‘public good’

Keynote Address by Sri Lanka’s Belgium, Luxembourg and the EU Ambassador Ravinatha P. Aryasinha

Before I conclude I want to get back from Sri Lanka’s concerns regards LTTE front organization activity in Europe, to the more generic issue of front organizations. In this context, allow me to posit 3 false dichotomies that I often confront in discussions concerning the need for listing front organizations, which could in the final analysis prove costly in serving the ‘Public Good’- both for Europe, as well as for the victims of terrorism.

i. Under Investigation vs. Conviction

The EC Common Position 2001/931/CFSP sets out criteria for listing of “persons, groups and entities involved in or in support of terrorist acts”. Article 1:4 stipulates that such inclusion “shall be drawn up on the basis of precise information or material in the relevant file which indicates that” a decision has been taken by a competent authority in respect of persons, groups and entities concerned, irrespective of whether it concerns the instigation of investigations or the prosecution for a terrorist act, an attempt to perpetrate, participate in or facilitate such an act based on serious and credible evidence or clues, or condemnation for such deeds”.

Hence, for the purpose of being considered for listing, whether a group is merely under investigation or convicted, is indeed a false dichotomy.

ii. Countering terrorism vs. freedom of expression

A second false dichotomy that stands in the way of taking action against charities and other front organizations supporting terrorism in Europe, is that it transgresses fundamental freedoms of those so charged.

This is not only false, but even cynical, for what could be more abusive of one’s fundamental freedoms, than organizations that engage in or support terrorism, that abuse the liberal values in Europe to propagate a terrorist ideology and those who might knowingly be contributing towards a terrorist organization.

In such context, the debate that followed the harrowing actions by the Aum Shinrikyo sect in Japan ( which incidentally, besides the LTTE who used a chlorine gas bomb against Sri Lankan forces in 1990, was the only other terrorist organization to use a WMD/chemical weapon in recent times), seems pertinent. Analysts have noted that in Japan, due to the shadows cast by the pre-war repression of religion, there was a tendency of Japanese security agencies to be culturally disinclined

 to examine or intervene in the affairs of religious movements. As Christopher Hughes argues, besides just not looking, the police showed too much caution when evidence of Aum’s misdeeds began to appear before them, and they refrained from intervening for fear that they would be accused of religious repression. Such attitudes have rapidly disappeared in post- Aum Japan, where a strong consensus has emerged that religious freedoms need to be balanced with the rights of the forces of law and order to examine and intervene in the activities of religious organizations where necessary, in order to protect society and the general public good.

Similarly, whether Europe’s pre-occupation with freedom of expression stems from the consciousness of its own violent history, and thus might be contextually misplaced in the changing global circumstances of confronting terrorism, requires closer study. In this context, the recent acts of violence by organized Tamil fronts in some European cities, including the killing of a Policeman in Paris, and the wave of pro LTTE demonstrations in Europe, including the one in Brussels opposite the EU to which I understand people were brought in buses from neighboring countries, only goes to prove the extensive organizational network of the LTTE and its front organizations which is thriving in Europe, notwithstanding the listing of the LTTE as a terrorist entity.

Hence it is a false dichotomy to pit countering terrorism, against protection of freedom of expression. While there should be no slackening in insisting that due process is followed, where freedom of expression ends and supporting/glorification of terrorism begins, merits urgent attention. iii. Law enforcement/criminal justice concern vs. a political concern Furthermore, particularly as diaspora communities convert themselves into vote blocks that could have a political bearing in marginal constituencies, one sees a dichotomy in the manner terrorist related issues are treated across the globe, between the law enforcement /criminal justice community on the one hand, and the political community on the other, and Europe is no exception.

If there were to be a dichotomy in the manner in which the body of knowledge relating to the threat posed by terrorist entities to people- whether one’s own or from any other part of the world - is to be assessed by the politician, as opposed to that of the law enforcement/criminal justice communities who are better equipped to make such assessments, it would indeed be a troubling prospect.

I am aware that some of the issues I have raised today, particularly the latter issues, clearly go beyond the scope of this Tactical Meeting. Nevertheless, I believe these are issues that must be flagged, and grappled with in all sincerity by the respective Governments of the EU and the European Council, if you are to serve the public good and to prevent terrorists from taking advantage of the gaps that exist within European states, between European states and between Europe and other states. I believe, it is a debate that we must take back to our respective institutions, communities and countries, as we refine the tools with which we continue to fight terrorism in all its manifestations.

To be continued