We should fear counterterrorism more than we fear terrorism
— Wolfendale, 2007, 75.
Introduction
Counterterror rhetoricians and securitising actors falsely contend that terrorism poses a momentous threat to human security that far exceeds the threats of war, invasion, accident, natural disaster and criminal activity. Following the September 11 attacks on the United States (US), terrorism has been securitised throughout the democratic world to justify uncompromising countermeasures. In the face of draconian countermeasures, McCulloch has remarked, “traditional civil liberties and human rights are dismissed as unaffordable luxuries” in combatting the heightened threat the September 11 attack is declared to embody. This essay will mirror the concern of Wolfendale, by setting forth that upon evaluating …show more content…
This essay will consist of four principal sections. Firstly, it will provide a brief summary and critical analysis of the theory of human security. Secondly, employing this theoretical lens and applicable evidence, the threat of terrorism will be evaluated. Thirdly, on the basis of this evaluation, it will principally set forth that advocates for human security should, for the most part, oppose present countermeasures in Australia. This is primarily because counterterrorism imperatively violates the political dimension of human security through radical legislative reform, as exemplified in the case of Dr Muhammad Haneef and the creeping militarisation of law enforcement. Lastly, counterarguments for human security advocates supporting counterterror measures will be contemplated. It will be asserted that countermeasures can, in some instances, improve personal and community dimensions of human security, whilst concurrently affording individual assurances of freedom from fear of violence. Ultimately, on the balance of a plethora of empirical evidence,
— Wolfendale, 2007, 75.
Introduction
Counterterror rhetoricians and securitising actors falsely contend that terrorism poses a momentous threat to human security that far exceeds the threats of war, invasion, accident, natural disaster and criminal activity. Following the September 11 attacks on the United States (US), terrorism has been securitised throughout the democratic world to justify uncompromising countermeasures. In the face of draconian countermeasures, McCulloch has remarked, “traditional civil liberties and human rights are dismissed as unaffordable luxuries” in combatting the heightened threat the September 11 attack is declared to embody. This essay will mirror the concern of Wolfendale, by setting forth that upon evaluating …show more content…
This essay will consist of four principal sections. Firstly, it will provide a brief summary and critical analysis of the theory of human security. Secondly, employing this theoretical lens and applicable evidence, the threat of terrorism will be evaluated. Thirdly, on the basis of this evaluation, it will principally set forth that advocates for human security should, for the most part, oppose present countermeasures in Australia. This is primarily because counterterrorism imperatively violates the political dimension of human security through radical legislative reform, as exemplified in the case of Dr Muhammad Haneef and the creeping militarisation of law enforcement. Lastly, counterarguments for human security advocates supporting counterterror measures will be contemplated. It will be asserted that countermeasures can, in some instances, improve personal and community dimensions of human security, whilst concurrently affording individual assurances of freedom from fear of violence. Ultimately, on the balance of a plethora of empirical evidence,