Last Train to Lhasa

[peteryoung]

So: the ongoing politics of "glorifying terrorism". I did not follow the Commons debate before the vote so I don't know how many points were covered, but once again this comes down to perception in the eye of the accuser. I anticipate lots of linguistic wriggling as a result when discussing the generalities of armed political resistance, at least in the written word and recorded speech, and politics for the punter as heard on the Today programme could become even more amusingly convoluted from that point of view in the years to come.

As this bill is all about what you can't say, and as it will very soon turn into a re-run of that old terrorist/freedom fighter argument, "ordinary guy" Blair needs to stop beating about the Bush and identify this country's own 'Axis of Evil' to the other ordinary guys who really need to be told where not to tread, ie. the causes around the world that are sanctioned as being just and righteous, and which rebellions (which if they are not armed, might soon turn out to be) British citizens can expect to be punished for saying they would 'glorify'.

Simple really, perhaps we could expect something like:

Terrorists (whose actions you must not glorify):
Al Qaeda
The IRA
ETA
Saboteurs of BP pipelines in the Nigerian oilfields
Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel
Tamil Tigers
Chechen rebels
Iraqi and wider Arab resistance to the US/UK occupation
etc etc.
(ie. largely those whose struggle directly runs against British/Western interests).

Freedom fighters (who you can glorify to your heart's content):
Tibetan saboteurs of the railway connecting Beijing to Lhasa
The people's resistance in Burma/Myanmar
Amazon tribes resisting the advance of Brazilian loggers
The Kurdish resistance
etc etc.
(ie. largely those whose struggle does not directly run against British/Western interests).

Until such time as our government tells us who we are allowed to offer vocal support, you can interchange between categories as you personally see fit, depending on your own perception or degree of political nous.

Now, I'm committedly non-violent in nature but like just about everybody else I know, I support those who resist oppression... but this law banning the 'glorification of terrorism', when boiled down to its essence, means essentially a ban on support for causes that use or have used violence. It will therefore make it harder to voice support for a resistance movement that has ever used violence as a means to an end whether you agree with their use of violence or not. Should we therefore withdraw our support for overseas political movements if they turn to the use of homemade bombs, for instance? UK politicians themselves might now find it harder to come out in support of overseas political uprisings against oppressive states if violence is ever used, for the risk of the charge of hypocrisy and furthermore the possibility of now being charged with 'glorifying', or at least supporting, terrorism. Far-fetched?

So, the way this punter sees it, I am allowed to say: "I support Tibetans in their resistance to the Chinese invasion of their country", but at what point would I be prevented from adding "and I encourage them to do so"? My support would surely constitute as a support of terrorist acts in the eyes of the Chinese, though I choose to see the Tibetan resistance as freedom fighters, not terrorists, as they are mostly non-violent in nature.

Or another scenario: how about if the patience of the people of Zimbabwe finally ran out, and they rose up against Mugabe with a direct attack on the government and its supporters that turned to the use of molotov cocktails, rubber necklaces, beheadings, organised bombing campaigns, Anarchy & General Mayhem, Inc. until Mugabe went into exile or was killed. Am I allowed to say that's ultimately a good thing because they are throwing off their oppressor? At the moment I expect so, because Mugabe is strongly anti-British and the oppression of Zimbabwe's people is obvious to anyone's eyes, but if I were to write, say, a newspaper article about it surely to comply fully with this British law I must also express a regret that they had to resorted to violence to achieve their aims, their violence using the same methods "terrorists" use against the US, UK, Spain, Indonesia... Therefore, if I expressed support of an internal or external uprising such as this that was against a nation friendly to the UK (such as the US, or Spain, or Russia) under this law I could be accused of supporting a 'terrorist' uprising if it was generally perceived as being as such, even though the methods of self-declared 'freedom fighters' are exactly the same.

So under what circumstances could a politician therefore be accused of supporting a terrorist organisation when a passive resistance movement turns violent? And if the IRA have really at last renounced violence, can British citizens now openly support them too if they feel so inclined?

If this law is to be applied to the voice of a country's people, then it ought also to apply to the actions of the government those people elected... I speak, of course, from the point of view of a citizen of a country that is also one of the world's largest exporters of arms. Can we now look forward to this government matching its own words with actions by rediscovering the phrase 'Ethical Foreign Policy', matching its denial of vocal support of political violence with a rejection of the means of state-sponsored violence sold overseas by the UK in the name of exports and 'defence'?

Come back Robin Cook, all is forgiven.

Comments

[drplokta]

And what about the historical terrorists? The celebration of the independence days of most countries will presumably now be illegal, since most countries gained their independence through terrorism.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

I got to that over here:

http://purplecthulhu.livejournal.com/101908.html

;-)

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

I think brisingamen would agree wholeheartedly with that last point...

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Except of course that Guy Fawkes Night is supposed to be celebrating the fact that the plotters were caught. We do not habitually burn heroes in effigy.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

Are you allowed to say "terrorism is a justifiable response under certain circumstances"? As that doesn't sound like glorifying terrorism, any more than "warfare is a justifiable response under certain circumstances" sounds like you're glorifying war.

I'm all for taking the glory out of both of them.