I believe that the term Terrorism has gained momentum after the attacks on September 11. According to the unwritten rules of nature, no person has the right to take the life of another person if she cannot return it with due respect. The media plays a pivotal role in painting the image of terrorism. The media is doing a business after all. A coin has two faces. Similarly, media is always not pristine and transparent as we think it appears to be. Instead, the terrorist attack is mainly motivated by constant needling by the media. The primary question that still persists is did media make an attempt to figure out why the 911 attacks took place If not, why
We are cognizant about the fact that terrorism is malice to the society. After the attacks of September 11, terrorism has become directly associated with Islam. I would like to stress this, as Islam is an ideology. Terrorism is not justifiable in Islam. To corroborate my statement I may refer to the book Islam Forbids Terrorism written by Harun Yahya. Now if media reports vaguely about terrorism then it can further instigate the entire community. A simple term, like Islamic terrorism, can create quite a stir in the Muslim community. An old saying goes An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Thus, the notion Islamic terrorism, if propagated by the media, can create a sense of insecurity, as the whole world will denounce Islam as a religion of hatred and, on the other hand, all the followers of Islam would see it as an attempt by the western media to stigmatize the Holy religion of Islam. Thus, I strongly believe that if media are not responsible for its propaganda, then it can instigate an ideological war under the name of terrorism.
Dr. Elizabeth Poole has studied representations of Islam and Muslims in British newspapers over the last 20 years, and also how different groups within the British public interpret these changing representations. Poole found out that the extent to which individuals accepted the dominant negative press representation of Islam and Muslims depended on the extent to which they had an access to alternative sources of knowledge. Thus, individuals who had no regular contact with Muslims largely accepted the dominant press. Individuals who had contact with Muslims but lacked knowledge of Islam tended to accept press representations of the religion, but held positive attitudes to multiculturalism, including their Muslim contacts. Muslims generally rejected the negative press discourses, but where the press covered events in Muslim countries they did not know.
Let us take the example of Iraq war. Kellner notes how other non-US networks, such as Canadas CBC, used a more neutral and moderated language (War on Iraq) than the US networks (War in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom). The War in Iraq can be misconstrued by the Arab world as an attempt by the west to shake the sovereignty and integrity of their countries. Because the primary reason, for which the war was waged on Iraq, could not be justified.
Let us also not forget that media are not just meant for reporting but also to make money. They are owned by megabuck magnates with an aim to get their cash registers ringing. They understand that truth is stranger than fiction. The amount of money involved is quite significant and business is quite volatile. They are directly or indirectly dependent on government for feeds and if they are in a war zone. It is also crucial to recognise the fact that it is quite arduous to eliminate the feelings of patriotism of a reporter. Somewhere down the line every reporter is human. The pressure to perform or perish always exists.
In the war zone where there is no control how you could possibly accept correct reporting by the reporters. Warzones have no rules and reporters are shielded by the military. Romilly Weekss and Juliet Bremners accounts in the Lewis et al. reading reveal how the military have tried to directly censor (blue-pencil) or control journalists reporting. Furthermore, the military may try and influence the news agenda by providing certain positive stories which are fed to journalists in an attempt to present military activity in a favorable light. Thus, at times the stories are completely fabricated and there is not even an aorta of truth that can be discovered.
Just like every Muslim cant be alleged as a Terrorist similarly every reporter cannot be maligned of being venal. Some journalist endeavour to report correctly, but, unfortunately, their reports are kept under wraps. In May 2003, the BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan accused the British Prime Minister Tony Blair of publicly lying. Gilligan stated that Blair used claims from a dossier he knew were inaccurate to justify the war in Iraq. The central, disputed claim was that Saddam Hussein could launch missiles against the British targets within 45 minutes. This began a battle between the BBC and Blair government in which the Director General of the BBC lost his job a scientist advising the government, David Kelly, took his own life and a major enquiry into the build-up to war was conducted (the Hutton Enquiry). The case is interesting, because the BBC is funded by the British state (or its taxpayers), yet must demonstrate its independence. It did so here by playing an oppositional role to the Prime Minister himself.
People set their opinions about anything only on the basis of media reports. But gone are those days when people have to rely on just selected channels. Internet has become a vital tool for people to view things from different perspectives. The emergence of al-Jazeera (English) and several video sharing sites, like YouTube, daily motion has played a vital role in bringing the real truth and the perspective of people all over the globe.
The state will, in the face of a terrorist threat, inevitably have to restrict civil liberties. Is such an opinion defensible
As an old saying goes Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things put together. We are cognizant about the repercussions of terrorist attacks. These attacks are capricious, and there is no definite way to put a hold on to these terrorist attacks. But if proper steps are taken, then we can make efforts to prevent such attacks. Prevention is better than cure. I believe that even if that requires curbing some of the civil liberties then it shouldnt be much of an issue. But these rights shouldnt inhibit the privacy or hurt the religious sentiments. But it is very important that the rights are subjected to limits and shouldnt be unfair.
In the recent past, France has imposed restrictions on women wearing veil. This, on one side, may appear to be a move to free women from any kind of bounds, but, on the other side, it may create a sense of suspicion in the minds of Muslims. This move prohibits the right to religion and right to freedom in some way or the other. But most importantly it is type casting all the Muslims as terrorists. The primary objective in restricting civil liberties is to filter all the suspicious elements of the society. But these rights must be applied with an aim to build trust among all the community members. The thread of trust is very critical, because if it is not maintained then it can entangle with misunderstanding and end up breaking. Thus, while doing any change in the civil rights the government must make sure that it takes along with it the people of the country.
The Terrorism Bill, 2005, the fourth major piece of anti-terrorist legislation since 2000. This legislation proposed to extend the length of time that suspects could be held without charge from 14 to 90 days, and created new offences of glorifying or inciting terrorism, attending a terrorist training camp or making preparations for acts of terrorism. These proposals extended and deepened challenges to traditional civil liberties in Britain, but in the context of changed rules. The prime minister lost the vote in the House of Commons on the 90 days detention proposal in November 2005, though he fought for it vehemently in the face of a likely defeat.
The fact that the bill was not passed at first does not prove that people of Britain are not anxious to save the country from terrorism. Instead, they unequivocally perceive the fact those 90 days of detention is unfair. But the positive side is that they do not abnegate it completely. They have developed a consensus over permitting 28 days of detention.
An important question that one needs to pay heed to is Do we really need these laws The answer is unanimous. The threat posed has both domestic and international elements, with a complex interaction between them. The response, too, needs to be broad-ranging and coherent. This has prompted a public articulation of the strategy1 and measures to strengthen still further the capacity across government to develop and deliver the plans and programmes necessary to achieve the strategy.
The core issue still revolves around terrorism. Terrorism has no face, no religion and no rules. The country is fighting blindly. Terrorism is like can cancer. We cannot afford to treat it with a pain balm. What we need is a comprehensive chemotherapy. Thus, restricting the civil liberties is a part of nullifying the chances of a terrorist attack. In the counter-terrorist context, the Governments response has been framed in terms of four interlinked goals and policies, laws and programmes to give effect to them
1. Preventing terrorism by tackling the factors, which influence individuals to become extremists and potentially to move on to terrorist action itself.
2. Pursuing terrorists and those who sponsor them.
3. Protecting the public, key national services and British interests overseas.
4. Preparing for the consequences of a terrorist attack.
Two of these four Ps seek to tackle and reduce the threat, and two to mitigate the consequences of any attack.
The Prevent element of the Governments counter-terrorism strategy identifies three principal strands of effort whose breadth illustrates the extent of the challenge
Tackling disadvantage and supporting reform addressing structural problems in the UK and overseas that may contribute to radicalization, such as inequalities and discrimination.
Deterring those who facilitate terrorism and those who encourage others to become terrorists - changing the environment in which seeking to turn others towards extremism and terrorist violence can operate.
Engaging in the battle of ideas - challenging the ideologies that extremists believe can justify the use of violence, primarily by helping Muslims who wish to dispute these ideas to do so.
By curbing some of the civil rights we are giving ourselves an opportunity to get to the grassroots of terrorist attack. The curbing of rights clearly helps in creating that filter between common man and the terrorists.
We all have to subscribe to the saying Its better to be safe than be sorry. I strongly support every effort that government takes in safeguarding the sovereignty of our nation keeping in view that they take all the people of the country together. In addition to this, we must all admit that we dont have a choice. The common man is helpless. It can neither compete with the government nor with the terrorists nor can it stand along with the terrorist. So it apt for it to cooperate and adhere to the laws formed by the government.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment