http://www.uq.edu.au/events/event_view.php?event_id=3426

Dr Martin Weber (UQ): `The moral grammar of social struggles and the use of force for political ends - before the law`View event details below. On this page you can view a printable version of the event, export event in iCalendar and Outlook formats and send the event to your friend.


Primary Information  
Date: Friday, 12 October 2007  
Time: 3:00pm - 4:30pm  
Room: 537
UQ Location: General Purpose North 3 (St Lucia)  
Event Information  
Description: `The moral grammar of social struggles and the use of force for political ends - before the law`

The paper is intended as a clearing exercise concerned with inquiring into the relationship between moral claims, and normative frameworks (or, framing understandings) in the context of the use of force for political ends. Its point of departure is a brief (and borrowed) critique of legal positivist thought, and, specifically, the idea that the socio-political ‘grammar’ of moral claims regarding the justification of political violence is defined by prevailing and evolving legal code (for instance, the Geneva Convention).

Having established this critique, the paper considers competing argumentative strategies for justifying the use of force for political ends in moral terms, and considers these against the backdrop of their respective general orientation: As justification on behalf of the dominant (for instance, the use of preventive military action, torture, or forceful coercion by other means), for instance by, or on behalf of, states), or the subaltern (for instance, the use of guerrilla tactics, targeted attacks, or coercive threats, for instance by, or on behalf of, insurgent groups, movements, or minorities). Contrasting and comparing these strategies with regard to the substantive moral claims to which they give expression, allows for a critical survey of their short-comings, and presents an opportunity to theorise them occupying a ‘pre-legal’ socio-political space in the context of broader normative change.
For such a theorisation, however, not many resources are currently available with which the attendant problems (identity/difference, perspectivism, etc.) can be grasped appropriately. In the final part, I consider ‘recognition theory’ as a possible candidate, and tease out strengths and weaknesses in the context of a discussion of the Nepalese insurgency, on the one hand, and the UK’s response to the threat of terrorism on the other.
URL: http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=66192
Event Category: Seminars & workshops /  
Contact Information  
Name: Dr Seb Kaempf
Phone: 57530
Email: s.kaempf@uq.edu.au
Org. Unit: Political Science and International Studies  

---

Anti-terror work 'may spur radicals'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Antiterror-work-may-spur-radicals/2007/10/15/1192300631741.html

The federal government's hardline approach to terrorism prevention may spur on radicals, a new report compiled by Melbourne academics for Victoria Police says.

The Counter-Terrorism Policing and Culturally Diverse Communities report, the result of a three-year project initiated by Victoria Police and researched by Monash University terrorism experts, is expected to be released on Monday, Fairfax newspapers say.

It warns that the federal government's approach could fuel radicalisation and undermine Victoria Police efforts to build links with communities.

"The Australian government's approach to prevention of terrorism fits with the major policy approach being applied in the United States, and is at odds with the best available knowledge on the threat of terrorism and the way that threat is best countered," the report says.

Credible anecdotal evidence exists that extremists were already probing Victorian society for alienated individuals to recruit, it says.

Tough counter-terrorism laws catches up more innocent people than traditional anti-criminal approaches, the report says. "Evidence from the UK and US suggests the impact of this may be significant in terms of fuelling a process of alienation, social exclusion and, ultimately support for terrorism."

A better way would be community policing that emphasises social cohesion and human rights, the report says, as it is more likely to win the trust of communities, including Muslim communities.

---

And you though our government was overreacting:

Japan fingerprinting foreigners

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Japan-fingerprinting-foreigners/2007/11/20/1195321778020.html

Japan has begun fingerprinting foreigners entering the country on Tuesday in an anti-terrorism policy that has sparked complaints from human rights activists, business travellers and long-term residents.

"At a time when terrorism is occurring throughout the world, we want foreigners entering Japan to cooperate, and to understand that it is better for them as well that Japan be safe," said Hisashi Toshioka, head of the Immigration Bureau at Narita airport, the main international airport serving Tokyo.

"The biggest objective is to prevent terrorism."

Critics, however, say the new procedures reflect a deeply entrenched view in Japan of foreigners as more likely to commit crimes and plays down the possibility of home-grown terrorism.

As far as I know, the offer is for information. The US doesn't want to to pay some other country to wage a war whcih it would prefer to wage itself and potentially interfere with US operations. If someone had the information, I doubt the extra money would be a deciding factor.

Apparently, the bounty was FAR too much !
The sort of people who was likely to assist USA , $25 Mill is an unthinkable amount.
May as well offer them the moon. It was unbeleiviable, hence untrustable. Esp from christians.

A good offer would have been for them to negotiate for the bounty, starting at .... something comprehendable for them

Yes.
We're talking about goat herders here. Uneducated, but not idiots.
They hate western society and are vey suspicious of us.

To offer them $25 mill for information is ludicrous. Who would believe that ?

yes, from our point of view it is ok.
from their point of view it is unbeleviable. offer them a small farm, some flocks of sheep, passage to another country etc etc .

I've heard of the Americans chasing down enviornmentalists and animal libbers as terrorists, but this is new:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Maori-targeted-in-antiterrorist-raids/2007/10/15/1192300644072.html

Maori and environmental activists are believed to have been targeted in a series of early morning anti-terrorist raids across New Zealand's North Island in which firearms were seized and arrests made.

The armed offenders squad executed search warrants under the Suppression of Terrorism Act and the Firearms Act at addresses in Auckland, Whakatane, Wellington, Ruatoki, and Hamilton.

The raids are understood to have targeted activists across a range of protest groups, including the environmental and Maori sovereignty movements.

Police late Monday morning refused to disclose the reason for the raids, and a spokeswoman in the PM's office said Miss Clark was not talking and directed all calls to police as it was an operational matter.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Protestors-gather-against-Maori-arrests/2007/10/16/1192300738026.html

A small group of protesters gathered outside the New Zealand consulate in Melbourne on Tuesday to oppose the arrests of Maori activists in anti-terrorism raids on Monday.

The protest was led by Sina Brown-Davis, who called herself a Polynesian anti-globalisation activist, and said the New Zealand government should be ashamed.

"This is a full-on criminalisation of dissent and a deplorable and disgusting attack on peace activists," she said outside the building in Melbourne's city centre.

Hi acid,
How have you been ?
I guess the anti-terror laws are enacted against people who plan to use violence to get their point of view across.
Be it religious, economic, ethnic, environment, socioeconomic, whatever.


If a group want to use petrol bombs, they are terrorists.